Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SCOTTISH UNITED INVESTORS, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Scottish United Investors, Limited," presented by Mr. Secretary Adamson; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Chepping Wycombe Corporation) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Manchester (Ard-wick Division), in the room of Thomas Lowth, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TIMBER TRADE (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now made further inquiries into the labour conditions prevailing in the Russian timber trade; and whether he can now give any information to the House as to the present conditions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As I have frequently stated, in the absence of full facilities being afforded by the Soviet Government, no useful purpose would be served by instituting such inquiries.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I have not any further information.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to avail himself of the report of the Anti-Slavery Society in this matters?

Mr. McSHANE: Have not the Soviet Government openly given an opportunity for any Press representative to go there to inquire into the conditions?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken or proposes to take in reference to the report from the Anti-Slavery Society on the conditions of labour in the Russian timber camps?
In putting this question, may I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his selection as President of the Disarmament Conference.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations.
In reply to the question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply returned yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the precedent set by Lord Grey in connection with the report of conditions in certain Portuguese cocoa plantations, when, on receiving a report in which I think Messrs. Cadbury's firm and others collaborated, he transmitted it to the Government concerned for their consideration?

Mr. HENDERSON: This report has not yet been published. I have seen a proof of it and I think that it will be better for hon. Members to wait; copies will be available shortly. When they have read it, I am not so sure that they will be so keen for me to act on it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: When the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he did not intend to act on the report, did that mean that no review would make the Government act on the report?

Mr. HENDERSON: My statement was based on an examination of the proof of the report.

DEBTS, CLAIMS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir K. WOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the work of the committees and sub-committees which are dealing with the question of Russian debts?

Mr. SMITHERS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions sub-committee B of the Russian Debts and Claims Committee has met during the past three weeks; and whether the difficulties which this subcommittee recently reported have now been satisfactorily disposed of?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). Sub-committee B last met on the 5th of May.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state now the reasons which sub-committee B gave for not being able to proceed with their work?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have not seen any reasons from sub-committee B.

CURRENCY REGULATIONS (BRITISH TRAVELLERS).

Mr. HASLAM: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that recently British nationals, after passing through Russia by the Siberian Railway, have, just before leaving Russia at the Polish frontier, had portions of the English money they were carrying with them confiscated by Soviet officials; and if he will inquire into the matter and make representations with a view to obtaining a refund of moneys so confiscated and with a view to obtaining a cessation of such confiscations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Certain currency regulations, under which the living expenses of passengers in transit through the Soviet Union are fixed at 7.50 roubles a day, were brought into force on the 21st of March last, and in certain cases this charge appears to have been imposed before notice of the new regulations had been given. I am in correspondence with His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on the subject.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the fact that this practice of taking money from citizens in other countries is part of the policy of the Soviet Government, is not the right hon. Gentleman surprised that they left them any money at all?

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement as to the outcome of his negotiations on naval armaments with the French and Italian Governments?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: During my recent visit to Geneva I was able informally to refer to this question in conversations with my French and Italian colleagues, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present time.

Mr. ROSS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time for us to review our position as this agreement does not seem to be effective?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that that time has arrived. I am not yet without hope that we are going to reach a settlement.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman now inform us what was the position of the British Government in these negotiations? Were we a principal party, or were the British Government endeavouring to act as an honest broker?

Mr. HENDERSON: That might be a question open to debate, and the right hon. and gallant Member must use his own judgment in the matter.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government will consider the advisability of proposing at the World Disarmament Conference that steps should be taken to internationalise air transport?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As the Prime Minister informed the House on the 11th May, a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, including representatives of the two other parties, is engaged on the consideration of problems
connected with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference. In these circumstances, I am not in a position to make any statement at present on particular problems such as that referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say, at any rate, that this is a matter which will not be overlooked?

Mr. HENDERSON: I can assure the hon. Member that we are entering into the examination in a very comprehensive way.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Dominions will be consulted very fully in this matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: We are in touch with the Dominions on all these matters, but of course they will be separately represented at the Conference.

Mr. MANDER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken by the League of Nations to counteract propaganda against the success of the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Any propaganda against the success of the Disarmament Conference is a matter to be dealt with not by the League of Nations as such, but by the Governments which intend to participate in the Conference, and by the various organisations and individuals in the respective countries, who desire its success.

Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the danger of armament interests undertaking propaganda definitely against the Conference?

Mr. HENDERSON: If there were such an influence operating as the hon. Member suggests, I think that it would be a danger.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that there is such propaganda?

Mr. HENDERSON: There again I do not know to what the hon. Member refers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question of course.

POLAND AND RUMANIA (TREATY).

Mr. MANDER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether the recent treaty of alliance and mutual guarantee between Poland and Rumania has been registered with the League of Nations; and if a military convention is included within its terms?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: This treaty was registered with the League of Nations on the 25th of April at the request of both parties. Its text includes no military convention.

SPAIN.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has anything he can report to the House regarding the situation in Spain?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis).

EGYPT.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any increase in the number of British police employed by the Egyptian Government since the spring of 1914; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: There are at present in the Egyptian police 49 European officers, of whom 42 are British, and 292 European constables, of whom 176 are British. In 1914, there were 62 European officers, of whom 44 were British, and 273 European constables. There is, however, no record of the number of the latter who were British.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the negotiations between Sir Miles Lampson and the Chinese National Government regarding extra-territoriality?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Sir Miles Lamp-son reports that progress has been made
on several of the points under negotiations; but I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Is it quite clear that this country will be in no way committed to the treaty which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to bring before the House, if a treaty is in fact the result of these negotiations, until Parliament has been consulted?

Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a certain form of commitment before we can even bring the treaty before this House. It must either be initialed or signed, but I have already said that there will be an opportunity for full Debate when it comes up for ratification.

SITUATION.

Mr. DAY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a further statement with reference to the conditions in China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: A People's Convention met at Nanking on the 5th of May and, after a session lasting about 10 days, adopted a provisional constitution for China. In consequence of political dissensions the Cantonese members of the National Government at Nanking appear to have seceded and formed a new Government at Canton, which was formally inaugurated on the 28th of May. I am awaiting further reports on these events from His Majesty's Minister in China.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it true that Mr. Eugene Chen has appeared on the scene again?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have not had any communication with him.

PALESTINE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conversations with the Jewish agency have concluded; and whether he can make a further statement about the proposals with regard to development in Palestine?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The conversations are now at
an end, and I hope that it may be possible to a make a further statement in the near future.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the fact that the hon. Member has satisfied the Jewish interests, will he not take steps to see that the Arab interests are equally satisfied?

Dr. SHIELS: I never said that we had satisfied Jewish interests. What I said to the hon. Member before, and what I say now, is that an opportunity has been given to both parties to consider the subject.

Mr. ROSS: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible to satisfy either or both parties?

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the disturbing nature of the news from Palestine as to the state of feeling between the two communities, will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper stating exactly what the basis of the conversations has been?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think that is necessary. What the conversations were about is quite well-known. They were about the new development scheme, on which a statement will be published very shortly.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not very necessary, in order to alleviate the fears of the Arab community, for the Government to state what these conversations have been about?

Dr. SHIELS: These conversations merely afforded an opportunity for both sides to give their views on the development proposals of His Majesty's Government, and the results of those conversations will be evident in the statement which will be made very shortly.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when that statement will be made—within a week or two, or a month?

Dr. SHIELS: I should think it will be ready within the next few weeks.

KENYA (ARAB REPRESENTATION, MOMBASA).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Mombasa
is essentially an Arab city and that the majority of the ratepayers are Arabs, he will take steps to see that they have adequate representation?

Dr. SHIELS: Representations which have recently been made on this subject are now being referred by my Noble Friend to the Governor of Kenya for consideration.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Member aware that only one of the 15 representatives there is an Arab, and, seeing that the Arabs have a majority there, will he not insure that they are adequately represented?

Dr. SHIELS: I am aware that there is only one Arab representative, but it is not quite accurate to say that the Arabs are in a majority, because there are more Indians than Arabs in Mombasa; but, still, I recognise that there is a case for consideration, and that point has been put to the Governor of Kenya.

AVIATION (HEAVY OIL ENGINES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any recent trials have been carried out with heavy oil engines in aeroplanes and seaplanes; if so, with what results; and whether any trials have been made with these engines in commercial machines?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): No such experiments have yet been carried out by the Air Ministry nor, so far as I am aware, by any firm or private individual in this country.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. HACKING: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any and, if so, how many schemes have been submitted to him during the past six months to abolish some of the 133 level crossings over railways in the administrative county of Lancashire?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No schemes providing for the abolition of level crossings in Lancashire have been submitted to me during the past six months.

Mr. HACKING: In view of the great unemployment existing in Lancashire, could not the Minister take action to see that schemes are submitted?

Mr. MORRISON: I have already done so. We have communicated, by circular and otherwise, with the county council and brought all pressure to bear. Indeed, we are willing to give 75 per cent. grants in approved cases.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. STRAUSS: 23.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when the White Paper will be issued making available to Members the information in possession of his Department in regard to the ventilation of the House?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I trust that the information will be in the hands of hon. Members early next week.

Mr. STRAUSS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps on the request made by a larger number of Members that there should be a further investigation by experts in this matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope the hon. Members who sent a letter to me will wait until they have had time to digest the information which will be published next week.

Mr. HASLAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department considered the disgraceful state of ventilation in the lavatory near the "No" lobby?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 24 and 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) when the federal structure sub-committee will meet; and whether the terms of reference will be drawn up and published prior to the committee commencing its work;
(2) whether a date has yet been fixed for the reassembling of the Round Table Conference; whether an agenda has been or will be prepared setting out clearly the basis upon which the discussions will
take place; and whether the safeguards set out at the last conference as the essential bask of further discussions have been accepted by the representatives of the Congress party as in the interests of India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The work of the Round Table Conference will be resumed in the autumn, and it is hoped that the members of the Federal Structure Committee will reach London at the beginning of September. The hon. Member will not forget that the scope for future discussions has already been agreed on as being with the object of considering further the scheme for constitutional government of India discussed at the earlier Session of the Conference. Of the scheme there outlined reservations or safeguards in the interests of India for such matters as, for instance, defence, external affairs, the position of Minorities, the financial credit of India and the discharge of obligations, were agreed to be an essential part as were also Federation and Indian responsibility.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the opportunity of the interval be utilised to make some progress with the provincial structures by negotiations in India?

Mr. BENN: That is a separate question, which I cannot answer now.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say that, in fact, the conference representatives have accepted the safeguards to which he himself has just referred as being in the interests of India?

Mr. BENN: That is a rather separate question. The agreement was made between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi as representing the congress.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Gandhi has been invited, and whether he has yet accepted?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will
cause inquiry to be made as to the possibility of instituting a regular system of propaganda in some portion of the vernacular Press in India with a view to counteracting the misstatements at present being spread among the Indian peoples and with a view to giving wider publicity to the advantages conferred by the existence of British rule in India?

Mr. BENN: The authorities in India have constantly before them the necessity of using all practicable means of preventing the public from being misled by false or tendencious statements made in the Press or elsewhere.

Mr. HARRIS: Are there not statements made in the English Press as well?

Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps are taken by the Government of India to make known the policy and intentions of His Majesty's Government regarding the reforms to the general public in India?

Mr. BENN: The declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government made by the Prime Minister at the close of the Round Table Conference has been translated into many Indian vernaculars and widely disseminated. A sound film taken of the closing stage of the conference including this declaration has been exhibited in a considerable number of towns in India and is reported to have been well received wherever shown.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether the Government used the Indian wireless system for making this statement known?

Mr. BENN: I have not any specific information on that point. There is a great difficulty about translations, as the Noble Lord knows well.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that this very useful precedent will be followed in the future for making known the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. BENN: I am seeking constantly to make the policy of the Government known, and to this extent we have succeeded. Every practical means will be considered.

BRITISH GOODS (PURCHASE).

Mr. HACKING: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now make a statement to the House regarding the fulfilment of that portion of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement which deals with the freedom of the Indian people to purchase British goods if they so desire?

Mr. BENN: I am satisfied that the terms of Clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement of the 5th March are now being generally implemented. There have admittedly been instances in which, in the view of the Government of India, the conditions of the settlement in this regard have been infringed, but as a result of action taken improvement in this respect has been effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICES.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent the prices charged for coal to public utility undertakings, to industrial concerns, or to private householders are lower than the corresponding prices at the same season last year as a result of the economies in the cost of production since the passage of the Coal Mines Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Coal Mines Act, 1930, deals only with minimum pithead prices, but it is yet too early to say what has been the effect of the Act either on pithead prices or on costs of production.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Member tell us whether, since the passing of the Act, prices have tended to go up or down?

Mr. SMITH: It is very difficult to form a definite opinion at the moment, because the time has been so short, and the question would have to be examined in the light of the different grades of coal.

Mr. LAWTHER: Is it not a fact that pithead prices in different parts have gone down rather than up.

Mr. SMITH: I would not like to say.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. DAY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether figures are now available for the number of boys under 16 years of age employed below ground in mines, under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, who were disabled for more than three days in the year 1930?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: During 1930, 6,330 boys under 16 years of age were disabled for more than three days by accidents below ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many were killed?

Mr. SMITH: Not without notice.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the output of steel ingots and castings in Great Britain during the month of April in the years 1930 and 1931 respectively?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: According to the statistics collected by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, the output of steel ingots and castings in the United Kingdom amounted to 696,100 tons in April, 1930, and 397,400 tons in April, 1931.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what, if anything, the Government are going to do to increase output?

Mr. SMITH: I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has stated several times that he is in consultation with the industry with a view to taking steps that may be helpful in that direction.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not increasing the demand the way to increase the output?

COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, for the information and protection of the public, so arrange, or if necessary seek legislative power for the purpose when amending the 1929 Companies Act, that when a statutory meeting of creditors and shareholders of a limited liability company is
held before the official receiver under a compulsory winding-up order, the names of the directors of the company shall be published when a statement is made by the official receiver concerning the affairs of the company?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It is already the practice for the names of the directors to be stated at the meeting and in the observations which the official receiver afterwards circulates among the creditors and shareholders.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these names are supplied to the Press, although they are very seldom published?

Mr. SMITH: I do not know that we have any control over the Press, but, if it is possible to take any steps, we will consider the matter.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of cinematograph exhibitors and/or renters who applied for and were granted a certificate of exemption for non-compliance with the quota provisions set out in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Of the exhibitors who carried on business throughout the last quota year, 122 applied for a certificate that the reasons for their noncompliance with the quota requirements were reasons beyond their control, and after consultation with the advisory committee, certificates have been issued in two cases. In addition similar applications were made by 38 exhibitors for part of the year only, and certificates have been issued in three of these cases. I am not yet in a position to give similar information in respect of the renters, whose quota year ended only in March.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say anything with regard to the exhibitors who have not had exemption certificates granted to them?

Mr. SMITH: A number of them have been dealt with by means of prosecution in the courts and others are being considered.

Mr. DAY: Does not the fact that a large number have failed to comply with the quota provisions set out in the Act show that this portion of the Act has broken down?

Mr. SMITH: The number is relatively very small.

Miss WILKINSON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what are the reasons given for not complying with the Act?

Mr. SMITH: They are various.

BRITISH WAR GRAVES, BELGIUM.

Captain PETER MAGDONALD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the alleged violation of British war graves in Belgium and the smuggling of remains of British soldiers into this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter. A searching inquiry by the Belgian Ministry of Justice is still in progress, the result of which will be communicated to me as soon as possible. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 12th May, I will send him notice when I am in a position to give him a reply. I will also communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North, who asked the original question on this matter.

Captain MACDONALD: As far as the investigations have gone, is there any evidence at all that there is any justification for the statement which has been made?

Mr. SHAW: I would rather not make any statement at all on the matter until I receive the report.

ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position of the Government of Great Britain in relation to the failure of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company to meet in cash its liability for the purchase of the Commonwealth Shipping Line?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Neither His Majesty's Government in Great Britain nor the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company have any liability in connection with the purchase of the Commonwealth Shipping Line from the Australian Government which was carried out by the White Star Line in accordance with the terms of an agreement dated the 21st April, 1928. I am informed that up to the present date all the instalments of the purchase price together with the interest in terms of this agreement have been duly met.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does the Financial Secretary disclaim the responsibility of the Government for all these transactions in connection with this matter, and does he say that the Government had nothing to do with it?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Government had no liability in this matter. The transactions were between the White Star and the Commonwealth Lines?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does the Financial Secretary say that the Government have no responsibility in any respect for any of these transactions?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In the first place the present Government were not in office at the time. But in any case the Government have no responsibility for transactions between a private company and a Dominion Government.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether any other Government at any other time had any responsibility?

UNEMPLOYMENT (DOMESTIC SERVICE).

Mr. McSHANE: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in all cases in which women are offered domestic employment at seaside boarding-houses, she will insist that in the offer of such employment the daily hours and the total for the week which the applicant will be expected to work shall be recorded alongside the amount of wages to be paid?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): For all vacancies, whether in domestic service or in industry, the Employment Exchanges can only pass on information as to conditions supplied by
the prospective employer, but so far as possible information is obtained which gives the applicant an opportunity of judging the conditions offered. I may remind my hon. Friend that if the applicant considers the conditions unreasonable and the employment on this account unsuitable, the procedure under the Insurance Act provides for the refusal of a vacancy to be judged by the competent authorities.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not common knowledge that in this particular industry landladies have to get, within a few months, what is their annual income, and accordingly these girls are worked an undue number of hours during those days; and will the right hon. Lady insist, in that particular occupation at any rate, that the hours shall be stated on the paper as a protection, so that the girls may know whether the hours are reasonable or not?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am doing my best to get exact information about this situation, but I cannot give what the employers do not give to us.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not a fact that it is impossible for the applicants to state before the courts of referees whether the situation is or is not reasonable, because the actual hours—the fundamental point—are not stated on the paper?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is a very difficult question, and I am giving it my careful attention.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Lady undertake that where the employer will not give the information the girl shall not be recommended?

Miss LEE: If the conditions were different and worse than those stated at the Employment Exchange, would a girl be in the position of leaving the job without jeopardising her right to benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think, in most cases, certainly yes.

TRADE BOARDS ACT (CATERING TRADE).

Mr. McSHANE: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour what further developments, if any, have taken place with regard to the proposed Trade Board for the catering trade?

Miss BONDFIELD: The proceedings which have been brought to prevent the making of this Order have been taken on appeal to the House of Lords. No action can be taken pending the hearing of the appeal.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not a fact that the last statement of the right hon. Lady was that six weeks only were to lapse, and I have therefore put down this question after the lapse of six weeks?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir, there was no time put to the hearing by the Court.

ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).

Estimate presented, of Charge for Army Ordnance Factories for the year 1931 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

CLASS VI.

FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £49,807, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and Grant-in-Aid of Piers or Quays; also for Loans to Herring Fishermen."—[NOTE: £31,700 has been voted on account.]

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): This is an important Vote, because the Fishery Board are assisting to foster and develop one of Scotland's most vital industries—the sea fishing industry. The industry is rather like the element from which it draws its produce—it is subject to tides and to alternating periods of storm and calm. A year ago it seemed to be on a rising tide with a prospect of fair weather, but since then both the principal branches have experienced ebb tides and storms, due very largely to the world-wide depression in industry. The trawling section, which depends mainly on the home market, has been adversely affected by the diminished purchasing power of this country. The herring industry also has passed through a difficult period. The summer herring catch in Scottish waters was below the normal. The fishing in East Anglian waters—in which the Scottish herring fleet and curers play a major part—was very productive and yielded good results to the fishermen, but there has been serious difficulty in disposing of the cured article, and in consequence very heavy losses have been sustained by the curers. This is largely due to the depression in continental countries, where prices have fallen very low, and where alternative
foodstuffs have cheapened so as to compete seriously with cured herrings.
The markets for this particular article of food are not elastic, and any overproduction, or any production of a poor quality, has a serious effect on demand and on price. Certain measures have been taken in recent years by the industry in an effort to secure the regulation of production in accordance with the probable demand. For the future, I understand, a meeting of members of the herring industry, held yesterday at Aberdeen, recommended statutory measures of regulation by the machinery of a control board. I need scarcely say that any resolution which I may receive as a result of that meeting will have my full and careful attention.
Although the herring fishermen came fairly well out of last year's operations, they are still faced with the problem of replacing the steam drifter fleet with more economical vessels. Further experience of the motor drifters with Diesel engines tends to confirm the view that a satisfactory substitute for the steam drifter is being evolved. These matters, with the associated questions of improvements in organisation, are engaging the attention of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I hope that the deliberations of that Committee, who, I understand, are now considering their report, will have the result of indicating the lines of development to be followed so as to place the industry on a firm foundation for the future.
When I visited the Scottish fishery harbours in 1929, I was much impressed by the serious state of affairs. I found that many of these harbours, as the result of War and post-War conditions, were heavily burdened with debts and were not in a position to execute necessary works of improvement, or even to carry out ordinary maintenance and dredging, and that the operations of the fishermen were very much hampered by defective accommodation. The Government, therefore, concentrated on the problem of ways and means to remedy the situation, and, since the Scottish Fishery Estimates were last discussed in this House, considerable progress has been made with the schemes for the improvement and development
of the fishery harbours, initiated with the financial assistance afforded by the Government. During last year, advances amounting in all to £187,000, of which £139,000 represented free grants, were offered in aid of schemes estimated to cost £264,000.
I have been talking about the case of the principal fishing harbours, and these, naturally, were the Government's first concern. It was necessary, however, to deal also with those smaller harbours and piers which abound on the West, the North, and the North-East coasts of Scotland, and are, in one aspect or another, essential to the economic welfare and well-being of our people at these outposts of our country. At many of these places there is a small but thriving local fishery; others are the service centres for remote settlements; and others again have a considerable productive and distributive importance. Careful surveys have been made of the circumstances with regard to pier and harbour activities at these places, and I myself have made a number of visits to the localities for the purpose of personal investigation. Between 1929 and 1931 assistance amounting to £10,596 has been given for these smaller piers and harbours. Since this Government came into office, the total assistance, made available for harbours and piers, in the way of grants, dredging, loans for new works, or remissions of debt, amounts to the very substantial sum of £496,000. This is in addition to the £10,596 provided under a different Estimate from the one which we are discussing this afternoon. In addition to this, the loans advanced to fishermen who sustained losses of fishing gear in the storm off the East Anglian coast in November, 1929, amounted to £18,000. This makes, with the sum of £496,000 which I have already mentioned, a total of £514,000. That is the measure of assistance rendered for these purposes to the fishing industry during the term of office of the present Government, and I venture to suggest that it is a record of which the Government have every reason to be proud.
The majority of the schemes of harbour improvement are in progress; some have been completed, and others are approaching completion. The two dredgers belonging to the Fishery Board
have been actively engaged at various harbours, and other ports will be dealt with when the work at present in hand is finished. I cannot claim that the schemes of improvement for which Government assistance has been sanctioned represent all that needs to be done to put the fishery harbours into a proper condition to serve the needs of the industry, and I am taking such opportunities as time permits for further personal investigation into their requirements, but I suggest quite frankly that this is a contribution of which, as I have already said, the Government have no need to be ashamed.
During the past few months the question of fishing in the Moray Firth has received a considerable amount of prominence, owing to the serious damage sustained by the local cod-net fishermen through the operations of foreign trawlers. The circumstances of the case render any detailed discussion of this matter undesirable at the moment, but it is receiving the earnest consideration of the Government. It bristles with difficulties, national and international, but I will leave no stone unturned in the endeavour to find a solution of the difficulties with which these fishermen are faced. I am very much impressed with the importance to the herring fishermen of having subsidiary methods of fishing to fill in the gap between the herring-fishing seasons. Herring fishing no longer provides a full time occupation, and the men require to resort to other supplementary measures, such as line fishing, cod-net fishing and seining. This is a matter that I have discussed with the men themselves during some of my visits to the herring-fishing districts. I am determined, as far as in me lies, with the able assistance of the Fishery Board, to do everything possible to restore the prosperity of this important industry, and I am ready to listen to constructive proposals towards that end.
Our fishermen and their womenfolk are a hardy and independent race. They want to carry their own burden, and they will willingly do so unless the circumstances of the hour prove too strong for them. We are passing through times when practical assistance such as the Government are rendering is needed to help this very worthy section of the community through their difficulties. What
is being done by the Government represents a very substantial contribution to the welfare of the fishermen and the fishing community and is evidence of the practical good will of the Government and their determination to do all they possibly can in order to carry this important industry through to more prosperous times.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it might be fitting to make a brief reference to recent changes in the constitution of the Scottish Fishery Board. For the last 10 years the chairman of the board, strange to say, has been a Welshman, and all those who knew Mr. Jones learned with the greatest regret of his sudden and untimely end. It is fitting on this occasion that we should pay a tribute to the great service that he rendered to the Scottish fishing industry during the long time he had been associated with it, first as a junior clerk and later as chairman of the board. A new board has just been constituted. We are glad to acknowledge the efforts of the Secretary of State in trying to make it representative of all the different sections and interests in the industry, and we can gladly say that the chairman of the new board and his colleagues start upon their duties with the confidence and the good wishes of all.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I realise his great interest in the welfare of the fishing community. He has gone out of his way to get into close contact with their life and work, and he knows many of their problems to-day a good deal better than he did two years ago. But I am sorry that he did not descend to greater particularity on some of the matters affecting the industry. He has told us nothing very new, and there are certain questions on which we are very anxious indeed to get information. We have had many Debates on the general questions that are before the Fishery Board at present, and we have always been held up, very often by the right hon. Gentleman, by being told that he was awaiting the report of the committee that is inquiring into this question. We have been waiting far too long for the committee's report, and it is difficult indeed to do anything on the general questions that are before the Fishery Board until that committee has reported.
I want to devote my attention to a very special question which has loomed very largely in Scotland and in the discussions among the fishermen and their friends within the last few months. It is the question of trawling in the Moray Firth. The right hon. Gentleman told us it was a difficult question, and gave us to understand that it would be rather rash for anyone to touch it. We shall never get any advance on this question until we grapple with it a great deal more energetically than the Secretary of State appears likely to do. This is not a local question. It is an old question. It has often been before the House, but it comes before us now with certain new features, and it is right that the House of Commons should realise what the matter is. It has caused the greatest resentment, not only among fishermen but throughout the whole of Scotland, and indeed the situation is so fantastic as to be almost incredible to those who have not been brought in contact with it.
British trawlers are prohibited from trawling in the Moray Firth, and, if they do so, their skippers are subject to great penalties, fines and imprisonment, whereas foreign trawlers may trawl there freely without any interference at all. That is bad enough in all conscience, but when these privileged foreigners come into the Firth and wantonly destroy the gear of the innocent fishermen who are peace ably carrying on their work, every reasonable person will agree that the situation is intolerable, and no Government can possibly stand aside and not attempt to do something to meet the situation. It may be asked how this absurd situation has arisen, and some Members who are not so familiar with it as we are in the North-East of Scotland, may be glad to be told how it has come about. The basis of the fishing policy with regard to trawling is that trawling in inshore and shallow waters is apt to be destructive of immature fish, and therefore injurious to fisheries at large. It has been found advisable to prohibit trawling in inshore waters. An Act of 1889 gave the Fishery Board power to close the whole of the Moray Firth, if it thought fit, to trawling, and by a by-law it did so, and ever since British trawlers at any rate have been prevented from fishing there.
The Act was meant to be applicable also to foreigners, but the foreigners
have objected on the ground that any part of the Moray Firth which is beyond what they say is territorial water is not subject to the municipal law of our country and that therefore they are not subject to this law at all. An attempt has been made to enforce this law against foreigners and many prosecutions have taken place. One leading case—the case of Mortensen v. Peters—was appealed against and came before the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh, with a full court of 13 Judges, which decided that Mortensen, the Danish skipper of a Norwegian trawler, was properly convicted. But the Foreign Office then intervened. This happened in 1906. Afterwards diplomatic representations were made by Norway, and, as a result of the intervention of the Foreign Office, the fine against Skipper Mortensen was remitted. Since then foreigners have had a free run of the Moray Firth while our own trawlers have been prevented from fishing there.
The hardship to British trawlers is also a hardship to British fishermen generally, because they are not able freely to fish there either. It is especially hard upon our fishermen in the Spring of every year, when cod-net fishing is very lucrative; and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said, it has become more and more important, because herring fishing has gone down in importance and it is highly desirable that there should be some other method of fishing to which they can turn. Unlike the herring fishing, which is carried on by means of drift-nets which usually drift upon the surface of the water, cod-nets are fixed at the bottom of the sea. These nets may have a run of something like two miles along the bottom of the sea to which they are anchored. There have been rules laid down for the marking of these nets when they have been set, and many of the foreign trawlers have objected and asserted that the damage has been done because of insufficient or improper marking of the nets. I have talked over this question with many fishermen and I have gone into it very closely, and I am satisfied that they are right in saying that the system of marking is impracticable and ineffective, and that is all I want to say about it at the present time. A solution of the
difficulty, I am sure, cannot be obtained by a system of marking the nets.
Year after year great loss has been occasioned to the fishermen by the damage to these cod-nets. Last year there was a great deal of damage done. I raised the matter in this House, and attempts were made at the end of last year to do something to minimise the damage this year. I am sorry to say that those efforts have been unsuccessful and that this year the damage has probably been greater than ever before. Sometimes you have boats losing in one night £40 or £50 worth of gear, a loss which no fishermen or any other person can stand. I am sorry to say, too, that there is some evidence that the damage is done recklessly and wantonly. I have here three statements which I could read to the Committee, but, as they are long, I will not trouble to do so. These statements show that in many cases trawlers have deliberately—I say it advisedly—trawled over the nets of the fishermen after having been warned that if they continued to pursue such a course they were bound to go over the nets and cause a great deal of damage. In some cases, the drifters have steamed after the trawlers and tried to head them off, sometimes with a little success, but very often with no success at all.
The right hon. Gentleman, when he went up to interview the fishermen a few months ago, suggested that when they left the nets they ought to leave behind one of their boats as a sort of "watchman." They tried that suggestion. On one occasion five drifters went out together and set their nets and then left one of their number to look after the nets of the whole of the five. What happened? A number of foreign trawlers came along, and the watching boat blew its syren, and later on put out flares and did everything possible to warn the drifters of the danger into which they were going, but it was all to no purpose. The trawlers trawled right through the nets and did enormous damage to the gear. Public opinion on this matter, I need hardly say, is entirely with the fishermen. Even the churches in Scotland have deemed it to be their duty to take the matter up and pass resolutions. Only last week the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland passed an overture expressing sympathy with the fishermen and calling upon the Government to take up the matter and get some sort of solution.
I raised this matter last year, and I raised it this year immediately after the damage was done, but I have not mentioned it in this House for a month or two. I have deliberately refrained from mentioning it in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of considering carefully a matter with which, I agree, it is very difficult to deal. But after three months I think that we are entitled to say that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in a position to give us some information, first of all, as to what he has done, and, secondly, as to what he proposes to do in the future. There are two questions to be considered. There is, first of all, the reparation for the damage that has been done. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do and what has he done to enable the fishermen to get compensation for damage which they can prove and bring home to individual trawlers? I hope that we shall be able to get some enlightenment from the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but that is not the most important or the most difficult question.
The position has to some extent changed since 1906, the time of the Mortensen judgment. At that time the trawlers at fault were not really foreigners. They were Grimsby and Hull trawlers, masquerading as foreigners. Very often they had a British crew with a Danish or Norwegian skipper, but they belonged to English companies. To-day, the trawlers chiefly responsible for the damage are Dutch and Belgian. The position has changed in other respects. We are entitled to ask the Government whether there is any sufficient reason why we should not boldly intimate to foreign countries that we propose to enforce the municipal law of this country against foreign trawlers. That is the only satisfactory and effective solution. We are not asking for any privilege for our fishermen and we are not proposing to put any restriction upon foreign fishermen that we are not prepared to impose upon our own fishermen.
We are not asking for any privilege of any kind.
It is high time that we had something in the nature of an international conference to decide what is and what is not territorial water. But the issue is not merely the question whether the whole of the Moray Firth should be considered as territorial water. The fisheries in the North Sea at the present time are largely governed by the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882, which gave to individual nations signatory to the convention considerable powers over the nationals of other countries. There is one article in particular to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, which lays it down definitely that trawlers should not trawl in the vicinity of drift nets and long line fishing. It is obvious from that article that cod nets would have been mentioned had such a method of fishing been in use when the convention was signed. It might be argued that cod-net fishing comes under that particular article, but if not it only shows the advisability of the whole convention being revised. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider proposing in the proper quarter that the signatories to that convention should be assembled to consider the whole matter and bring it up to date, in the light of modern knowledge and practice. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take the initiative in that direction.
Action in that way, although it may be very helpful, takes time. The difficulty is that if something is not done very quickly it will mean that by next spring when the cod fishing comes on the position will be exactly the same as before. It is interesting to remember that when the trouble with Norway took place, 25 years ago, Norway agreed, I think I am right in saying, provisionally to instruct her trawlers to keep out of the Moray Firth until a permanent agreement had been arrived at. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman invite the foreign countries involved in this matter to instruct their trawlers, without prejudice to their rights, to keep out of the Moray Firth until a permanent solution of the difficulty has been reached and until the whole question has been considered in a judicial spirit? I think that is a very fair suggestion to make and I hope that the Government will consider it.
I hope that I have not unduly taken up the time of the Committee in dealing with the matter. It is of vital importance to my constituents, indeed, more important to them than to any other constituency, and I was bound to do what I could to bring it before the Committee at the earliest convenient moment. I believe that I have waited long enough and that now I am entitled to press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer. I know perfectly well that he realises the gravity of the whole problem, and I hope that he will take the opportunity of saying something to reassure the fishermen of Scotland and public opinion generally in Scotland.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I should like to associate myself and those who sit on this side, including the former Secretary of State for Scotland, with what has been said in regard to the late Mr. Jones, and to endorse what has been said as to the most distinguished services that he rendered to the fishing industry in Scotland, and to express our great regret at his death. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) in regard to the difficulty in which we am placed in discussing the fishery question by the continued delay in the publication of the report which has been promised by the Government for a long time. I asked a question on the subject on the 2nd February, when I was told that the draft report was then under consideration. I do not know how long they will continue considering the draft report, but it is time that it saw the light of day. I hope that no further delay will be experienced. The Secretary of State took credit to himself for the work that he has done in connection with the harbours. In that connection I would remind him that in the Budget of 1929 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the provision of a sum of between £20,000 and £30,000 for the reduction of harbour dues, and provision was also made for the remission of harbour debts. Therefore, in what the right hon. Gentleman has done, he has been merely carrying out the work initiated by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Unfortunately, the Conservative Government went out of office a few weeks afterwards, but the proposal was definitely
made and the money was provided. As regards fishery research, I 4.0 p.m. wish to put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I see in the Estimates that- there is a sum of £5,378 for fishery research, and under that heading there are a number of officials employed in scientific investigation. There is also a research steamer, the "Explorer." Under sub-head D, there are items for maintenance of laboratories, apparatus, etc.; maintenance of research steamer; maintenance of motor boat; and salmon fishery. I notice that there is a grant from the Development Fund towards salmon fishery research. This question of fishery research is a most important part of the Estimates.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a Debate on fisheries in this House at the end of 1929, when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries dealt with this question. He said that during 1930 a new plan was to be worked out for the exploration of new fishing grounds. I should like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman what has been done in carrying out that plan. The Scottish Fishery Board is one of the authorities that has been engaged in carrying it out, and I should like to know what work has been achieved, as the provision of new grounds is of the very highest importance to the fisheries. I might point out that this work of searching for new fishing grounds was started by the late Government, and the right hon. Gentleman knows what was done. I want to know what has been achieved with regard to banks where cod and haddock are found. I should also like to know if any work has been carried out by the steamer in exploring ground south of St. Kilda, and the important grounds which are believed to exist between Shetland and Norway. It is generally believed that there are very valuable fishing banks north-east of Greenland, north of Iceland, stretching to Spitzbergen. Nothing can be of greater importance to the fishing industry of the country than that exploration should be undertaken with a view to discovering and charting those banks. There are great possibilities for our fishermen, and I make no apology for stressing the importance of this work.
With regard to scientific investigation under the control of the Board, who have, I know, very distinguished and capable officials helping in this matter, I should like to ask whether further progress has been made in connection with new methods for the preservation of fish, whereby fish can be kept in a fit state for consumption for a longer period, and also as to new treatment with regard to ice and artificial refrigeration. Has progress been made during the year in those very important matters? I would also ask whether the scientific people working for the Board have been able to make progress with regard to new schemes for the utilisation of by-products? There is an illimitable field for the use of byproducts of fish, and it is in work of this sort that an advance can be made of great importance to the fishing industry, and, indeed, to the whole country. Lastly, I wish to ask about salmon. I see that for salmon fishery research there is a sum of £1,600, and a special grant from the Development Fund for research. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what work has been done in this connection and whether any valuable results have been achieved? One knows that the habits of the salmon are rather obscure, and I should be glad to know whether, by means of this investigation, knowledge is being obtained that will be of value in the future.
These were the matters which I wished to bring before the right hon. Gentleman on these Estimates. I realise, from the bottom of my heart, the great importance of the line fisheries, but, after all, the trawlers land in Scottish ports the great bulk of the fish. I think that something like 72 per cent. of the fish last year were landed from trawlers, and I believe that, if you take England, the proportion is greater. Therefore, I make no apology for these inquiries on behalf of the trawling industry. It is of the utmost importance that every effort should be made to find these new banks, which we well know exist, but which have to be charted and made available for fishing. Therefore, I should be very interested if the right hon. Gentleman could give me a full account of the activities of those who have been engaged on research work, and what the research steamer has been doing during
the past year, because these matters are of the highest importance to the future of the fishing industry.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like, first of all, to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and regret which have come from all quarters of the Committee in connection with the death of the late chairman of the Fishery Board. Those of us who came in contact with him found him not only amiable, but able, and, indeed, brilliant, and everybody connected with the fishing industry in Scotland will feel the great loss which that industry has sustained in his death.
I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Major Wood) has taken the leading part in this discussion to-day, because there is no Scottish Member who has taken a deeper interest in this matter than my hon. and gallant Friend, and I think that the Committee as a whole is indebted to him for the admirable survey that he has made and presented to the Committee of all the difficult problems which are affecting the fishing industry in Scotland at this moment. I was rather sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State led off this afternoon. It is true that my right hon. Friend has that privilege. In the course of his speech, he said that he would be very glad to listen to any constructive proposals which those of us who are interested in this subject would like to put forward, but he makes it extremely difficult for those who follow him to put forward those proposals, and, at the same time, to have an assurance that we shall have from him any reply in Committee. I must say that he has taken very great interest in this problem, and has gone to no end of personal trouble to find out for himself the difficulties connected with it. He has made a great many pilgrimages all round the coast of Scotland, has come into contact with fishermen of all classes and has attempted to understand the problem.
After all is said and done, however, no one who listened to his speech could have come to any other conclusion than that the position to-day is as bad as, or worse than, it ever was. That is the impression made on my mind, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what it is he has in his mind. He told us that the present Government have spent a great deal of money. All I can say is
that there is very little to show for it, and that the complaints which I and my colleagues are getting from Scotland at this moment are as bitter and as persistent as they were during any regime of any Government which has existed in this country. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that there is very grave discontent at the present time in Scotland in connection with this industry, and the reason for that is obvious. I see my right hon. Friend the High Commissioner for the Churches in Scotland, the representative of the King, sitting behind the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has come fresh from occupying that very dignified and honourable position, which we are all delighted to see him occupy. He has come back with the knowledge that people from every corner in Scotland, congregated in Edinburgh during Assembly time, have given expression to their views on this question. They have come to the conclusion that this industry cannot be allowed to die out, and, believe me, it is not a question nowadays of the development of this industry: it is a question of its preservation, which is an entirely different proposition.
It is all very well to stand at the Treasury Box to-day and pay a passing tribute to the fine stock which the Scottish fishing industry has produced in the past, and has still, in a very much smaller degree, alas, to-day. Anyone who knows anything about the War conditions, knows that the British Navy could never have gone to any part of the world, that no British troops could ever have been taken to any part of the world, had it not been for the magnificent gallantry, the patience and wonderful strength and manhood of this stock, who came straight from the fishing vessels on the east and west coasts of Scotland. Yet the Government are standing by and not attempting in any way, as far as I can sec, to preserve that stock, far less to develop the industry, and make it better for the maintenance of that stock in the land of its birth. What is happening now? If you look at statistics from every village on the east coast of Scotland, and particularly round the Moray Firth, and on the west coast, the young men are not following the industry of their fathers. They have the spirit of the Vikings, of
the bravest and most gallant men in the whole world, and yet, by the ineptitude of Government after Government, and by the apathy of Government after Government, you are driving those men away to other occupations.
I have at the present moment on my table at home, applications from 17 young fishermen in my own constituency who say that no longer can they follow the occupation of their fathers, and that they desire to get something to do in the outside world. It is false economy to attempt to economise in, an industry of that kind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite knows nothing about these things. They do not want to get away; that is the whole point. They want to be granted reasonable and better conditions of life, and, if they get them, they will fight not only the sea and the storm, but the bitter battle of life. What happens? The Secretary of State pays no attention to the real crux of the question so powerfully put by my hon. and gallant Friend; that is, the conditions which exist in the Moray Firth owing to the depredations of foreign trawlers. The whole situation is an affront and an insult to the Scottish nation. What are the facts? I am not going to develop this very far, but I have sent memorials to the Secretary of State asking him to approach the Government to do what is possible to give British line fishermen a fair chance in their own home seas. What happens? In 1018, when the War was over and when peace was declared, a German trawler could leave Kiel Harbour and go into the Moray Firth——

Mr. WOMERSLEY: In 1918?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am putting a hypothetical case. If the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is so meticulous let me say that if a German trawler on 12th November, 1918, desired to leave Kiel Harbour and cause depredations in the Moray Firth it was perfectly at liberty to do so, but, if a trawler from Leith wanted to go there, it was not allowed to do so. That is the condition obtaining there to-day, and not a single thing is being done by the Government to deal with a situation which in my judgment is intolerable. It is high time something was done. My hon. and gallant Friend made a reference to the actual facts. There was a case in the Scottish
courts in 1906. It was not an appeal to one judge but to the whole Court of Session, of 13 Judges, which in the old days we used to call the Crown Court Reserve Cases. All the judges came to the conclusion that Scottish law is quite clear and definite with regard to the Moray Firth, and its power to legislate with regard to trawling in that part of the country, and they laid it down as Scottish law, from which there could be no appeal to the House of Lords, that no trawler had the right to go there and create damage within the three-mile limit. What happened? The Government of the day took the law into their own hands, over-riding the law of Scotland—[An HON. MEMBER: "A Liberal Government!"] It does not matter in the least what Government it was, I am not exculpating that Government. I say that if you have a Government which is a United Kingdom Government you may have results like that, and it is quite obvious that it is necessary in matters of this kind to have a Government purely Scottish in origin and in power. If things like that are allowed to exist, that is what it is coming to, and I hope we shall have in reply something more than a purely passing reference to a matter which is an insult to the country to which we belong and an insult to Scottish law and practice.

Mr. SANDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman will have to approach Mr. Comp-ton Mackenzie.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member is always interrupting and is generally irrelevant. Let me come to a smaller problem subsidiary to the larger one. It is not only that foreign trawlers are allowed to come into the Moray Firth and do irreparable damage to the property of innocent fishermen; it is not only that they destroy nets; it is not only that the foreign trawler is allowed almost without let or hindrance to destroy the property of innocent fishermen who live and work around the coast. They destroy nets which cannot be restored because the capital of these fishermen has been exhausted; and may I say that there are many people who are very anxious indeed to know what the Government are going to do in regard to these matters? The times are bad and they are no longer able to restore nets which are lost
through no fault of their own. They are pursuing an innocent occupation under the law of the land, and are entitled to carry on their work in storm and sunshine; and they see their property being destroyed and not a single hand lifted by the Government to protect them.
But not only is their property-destroyed in the Moray Firth, but in those waters which are shallow, like parts of the Minch, where the fish come through to spawn, the spawning beds are also destroyed. Obviously, they are the source of the fishermen's wealth, they are sacred to them, and when the trawler, whether he owns an otter or a seine net, destroys these spawning beds the result is that not only does the fisherman find his property destroyed but the source of all his wealth destroyed as well. And not a single thing is done by this Government, or has been done by any other Government, to put a stop to it. In the Moray Firth another practice is going on. It is not only the herring which are being destroyed, but the white fish beds and the sprat beds in the Beauly Firth. I have made an appeal to the Secretary of State to approach the Admiralty with regard to this matter, and I have a petition from 270 people engaged in the fishing industry in this part of the coast protesting against the Navy practising gun firing in that particular part. All the experts have come to the conclusion that the intensive naval gun practice is destroying what was once a flourishing industry. My right hon. Friend has promised to give sympathetic consideration to the matter, but I am tired of getting that reply. I want something more active on the part of the Scottish Office when an industry like this is being destroyed. My right hon. Friend should approach the Admiralty at once and make it plain that, if the facts are as I have stated, the practice should be stopped at once.
The Secretary of State has visited many harbours on the West coast and on the East coast, and I understand that he is going to visit a great many more. I should like to know whether we are going to have a report from the inter-Departmental Piers Committee. It is about time we had that report. I have in mind piers and harbours like Port-mahomack, where had it not been for that harbour there would have been great
danger to the fishing fleet in case of a storm. It requires improvement in the matter of dredging. The same thing applies to Balintore and Cromarty and Avoch. These are specific cases where, if this fine race of men is to be preserved on the land, something must be done. When I hear that £500,000 has been expended, I want to see some effect as a result of that expenditure. My people say that they see no signs of it, and I should be greatly delighted if the Secretary of State will tell us what he proposes to do. May I ask the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State to tell us what action they propose to take with regard to the depredations of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth? May I ask if my right hon. Friend, as a Scotsman, thinks it right that while our trawlers are not allowed to go within 13 miles of the Russian coast or our ships within 13 miles of the American coast, all these foreign trawlers are allowed to come within the three-mile limit in the Moray Firth?
It is time that this question was tackled seriously. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate on the Government Bench. There is no one who has a more acute mind or a more profound knowledge of Scottish law. Is he content to sit by, or to stand by, and see the Government do nothing when the finest industry in this country is being destroyed by principles which are alien to the law of Scotland? If he is going to reply, may I ask what he proposes as an alternative to the law in this direction? Scotland will no longer tolerate the condition of affairs which exists at present, and there is not a single man in the House of Commons, or in the other place, who is not prepared to protest against them. I hope, therefore, that the protest I have made to-day will not fall on deaf ears; that we shall have something from the Government which will ease the mind of so many people engaged in this great industry, and that they will be comforted by the thought that at last the Government are going to tackle this question and to raise Scottish nationalism and Scottish law to the place it deserves to occupy.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I desire to intervene for a few minutes in order to say a word or two on the question of the Moray Firth. I do not think any Member of the Committee
will complain because the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) has raised the question this afternoon. We are all agreed that it is a question of importance, I would go further and say that I think it is a question of urgency. It is a little unfortunate that the urgency of the question was not recognised by our predecessors in office. I am not referring to our immediate predecessors only, because this question has been important, and, indeed, urgent, since 1907. I do not think that any difficulty at all arises upon the law. The legal position of the Moray Firth is not really obscure. In 1906, in a case to which the hon. and gallant Member for Banff referred, Mortensen against Peters, a full bench of the High Court of Justiciary decided that a by-law which had been framed and passed by the Fishery Board of Scotland was valid and enforceable not only against the British trawler but against the foreign trawler as well. That decision of the High Court of Justiciary, which is the supreme criminal court in Scotland, was arrived at as a matter of construction upon the terms of the by-law and the terms of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1899, under which the by-law was made. The view of the Court was that it was not concerned in any way with the policy of the Legislature, that its duty was to construe the by-law and Act according to their terms, and, treating the matter as a matter of construction, they held that the by-law was valid and enforceable against the foreign trawler as well as the British trawler.
It is right that the Committee should know that, while the Court in 1906 treated the matter as a matter of construction, two at any rate of the Judges indicated a larger view, and that larger view was that the waters of the Moray Firth, to use a technical term, being intra fauces terrae, that is, within the jaws of the land, were within the territorial sovereignty of this country. It was not necessary for the purpose of that decision for the Court to decide that question, but there were very clear indications to that effect from Lord Kyllachy, who was a Judge of great eminence, and Lord Dunedin, who is now a Lord of Appeal and was then Lord Justice General, than whom there is no more distinguished authority. I think it may quite properly be said, therefore, although it might be
disputed by foreign countries, that the Moray Firth is within the territorial jurisdiction of this country. But the real difficulty, and indeed the whole difficulty, arises from considerations of policy. The hon. and gallant Member for Banff said that the problem was not a local problem. That is exactly the difficulty. If the problem were a local problem I have no doubt that it would admit of a local solution. But the problem is a general problem, and the solution of it must depend upon weighing up and balancing a great variety of considerations affecting our fishing interests generally. If the Moray Firth were the only territorial inlet in the world there would be no difficulty; but there are other territorial inlets, and British fishermen fish every day in the territorial inlets of other countries. I believe the technical term for territorial inlet is historic bay. It is not a very happy term. Every day British fishermen fish within the historic bays of other countries.
The problem that we have to consider is whether if you enforced a by-law prohibiting the foreign trawler in your territorial inlet, you may not invite a repercussion against the British trawler which is now permitted to trawl in the territorial inlets of foreign countries. I ask the Committee to accept the view that that is a very real difficulty. I do not know what were the reasons which induced Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary in 1907, to advise the exercise of the prerogative with the result that the penalty which the Courts held had been rightly imposed upon a foreign trawler was not enforced. I believe the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was a Member of that Administration and he may be able to indicate to the Committee what the considerations of policy were. But I have no doubt whatever that they were valid considerations of policy, and I am bound to say that the anxiety which the present Government feels is whether the considerations of policy which were held to be valid in 1907 are not equally valid to-day. If the considerations were purely strategic considerations depending upon views of naval policy, it may very well be that the considerations have altered since 1907, but, on the other hand, for all I know the considerations may have had nothing
to do with naval policy at all but may have been considerations dependent upon the fishing interests of this country, to which I have already referred.
We are all agreed that it is desirable that something should be done, if it can be done without repercussions upon other British interests, for the protection of the fishermen of the Moray Firth. I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I think it is hard that there should be a discrimination as between the foreign and the British trawler in the administration of the law. The question is, what is the appropriate remedy? No doubt the law might be enforced. The law is clear and it is capable of being enforced. One possible view is that it might be enforced with the risk of repercussion; in other words that we should "chance it." That may be a very bold policy. I am not at all convinced that it is a wise policy, because I think that in this matter, important as the interests of the Moray Firth are, His Majesty's Government has to take all fishing interests into consideration. Another view is that we should try to obtain international recognition of the Moray Firth as British territorial waters. That is the method of agreement and there is a great deal to be said for it. On the other hand the Committee will recognise that if we are to obtain any international recognition of the Moray Firth as territorial waters we would probably require to make some concession in the way of recognising the territorial inlets of foreign countries as territorial waters within the territorial sovereignty of those countries.
A third possible line of approach is by means of some form of fishery treaty or convention. The practical result of that might be the same, although theoretically it would be different. The result of a fishery convention such as I have in mind would be that the Moray Firth would be recognised as within the territorial jurisdiction of this country for fishing purposes only. It would not raise the larger question of whether it was within the territorial jurisdiction for all purposes. Another form of fishery convention or treaty which has been suggested is a convention that would recognise a close time for the Moray Firth or for part of the Moray Firth.

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that some of these suggestions would require legislation. It is quite right that the Lord Advocate should state how the difficulty can be remedied, but it would not be in order to develop arguments along those lines in reply. What properly are matters for the Foreign Office cannot be discussed at length on this Vote.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I was about to point out that one aspect of the matter has been considered by the Scientific Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. I wish finally to refer to a suggestion which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff. He pointed out that the North Sea Convention of 1882 applied to drift nets and long lines. We take the view that the Convention of 1882 does not apply to anchored cod nets, the disturbance of which is the immediate cause of the difficulties which have arisen, but I think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that there might be an amendment in the form of an extension of the North Sea Convention of 1882 is a very valuable suggestion, and it is one which the Government will certainly keep in view.
I wish to assure the Committee that the Government have been by no means supine in this matter. It is true that three months have elapsed since my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire that the matter was under consideration, but on the other hand one cannot leave out of account that 23 years or nearly 24 years have elapsed since the course of the law was interfered with by the Foreign Secretary of the day in 1907. The problem is an extremely difficult one. I am in a position to inform the Committee, however, that the problem has been explored very fully within the last six weeks, and it has been explored, not merely as a problem affecting the Scottish Office, but as a problem affecting other Departments of Government. It has been treated as an inter-depart-mental matter upon which consultation has taken place, and I hope that as a result of the consultations which have now been proceeding for some time it may be possible within some reasonable period in the future to arrive at a
solution of a difficulty which I think all parties in the Committee wish to see solved if it is at all possible to reach agreement.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I fully recognise that it is an act of great daring on the part of an English Member to intervene on a Scottish day and yet this subject of the Moray Firth transcends even the interests of Scotland. It really is and ought to be recognised as a national question. Indeed it raises international as well as national issues. And it is not a matter which should be subject to any party controversy. It is true that all Governments for the last 30 years have to bear responsibility in this matter. Even over a period of 40 years this question of the Moray Firth has been under consideration and has been a matter of controversy. It is also true, as the Lord Advocate said, that the issue reached a critical phase in the year 1907. A Government was then in power of which I had the honour to be a Member, but, at that time I was merely Under-Secretary at the Home Office, and I am afraid that this matter did not come under my direct cognisance and that I am unable to interpret to the Committee to-day the frame of mind of the Foreign Secretary of 24 years ago.
The facts of the matter are not in any way in dispute. Here is this great arm of the sea which is 73 miles across at the mouth. Three-quarters of it are not territorial waters as ordinarily understood. There are, or there were not very long ago, on the shores of the Moray Firth about 70 towns and villages—I do not know whether there are so many today—depending for their livelihood mainly on the fishing. The water, over a great part of it, is shallow, and it is one of the best-known spawning grounds in the North Sea and the adjacent waters. At certain periods of the year it is full of immature fish. As long ago as 1889 Parliament gave power to the Scottish Office to enact that no person should use beam or otter trawls in these waters, and the Scottish Office made regulations accordingly in 1892 and 1896. They allowed net fishing and line fishing, but trawling was forbidden.

Then the question arose as to whether this prohibition applied equally to foreign trawlers. A case was tried in the courts, as has been mentioned to-day, and a full
Scottish court of 12 or 13 judges decided unanimously that Parliament must have intended it to apply to all persons whether British or foreign, because it used the words "any person," and "any person" was not identical with "any person of British nationality," and therefore must be interpreted according to the normal meaning of the words. The court so ordained, but the Government of the day held that, according to international law, any such decision was really ultra vires and that there was no power to apply this domestic law to foreigners outside British territorial waters as ordinarily understood. On this question Lora Salvesen, a very distinguished Scottish Judge, and a member of the court which gave the decision to which I have referred, has recently written to the Press:
In arguing in favour of the conviction being sustained the Law Officers of the Crown at that time said it was unthinkable that Parliament should have legislated on the footing of giving an exclusive privilege to foreigners in the area in question, and denying it to the fishermen of the district.

Unthinkable that Parliament should have legislated to exclude British fishermen and allow foreign fishermen to trawl in these waters I But the very thing which is declared unthinkable is precisely what did occur. According to the decisions of the Law Officers of that time, not challenged, I understand, by the Lord Advocate to-day, that is just what Parliament then did, and the responsibility rests here. That is why I am urging on the Committee that we, as a Parliament, without regard to any question of what Government happens to be in power at any particular time, should take cognisance of this matter and insist that a remedy should be found for a very obvious abuse.

The facts have already been stated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banffshire (Major McKenzie Wood)—who has rendered a service by raising this question to-day in a speech of great force and clarity—and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). Great damage is done to Scottish fishermen when the trawlers come sweeping in with their trawls, indifferent to nets or lines. It is recorded that on one occasion in 1929 18 boats lost 70 nets, and 35 more
nets were destroyed. An able article appeared in the "New Statesman and Nation" of 28th March giving details of cases which have happened this year. It is recorded that the steam drifter "Exuberant" of Buckie left her nets to tow home a disabled comrade. Soon afterwards a foreign trawler steamed in from the sea, and 16 out of the "Exuberant's" 46 nets were lost. On the following day, which was a Sunday, it is stated that several foreigners took advantage of the quiet reigning on the cod-grounds to trawl through the floating marks of the fishing fleet, and that one boat lost 14 nets and another 25. Not only that, but the Scottish fishermen have to sit still and look on—and also the fishermen from Grimsby and elsewhere—excluded from this trawling ground, while foreign fishermen can come in, and, in conformity with British law, carry on their trade there.

When a committee was appointed a few years ago by the Scottish Office in connection with this matter, they reported that witnesses had told them that when Scottish fishermen sometimes ran the risk of infringing the law, and of being detected, and let down their trawls in this area, a foreign trawling boat would come along, hail the skipper of the local boat, and inform him that if he did not cease trawling they would report him to the Fishery Board. The foreigners were perfectly free all the time to carry on their industry as they chose. That is an intolerable position, which Parliament cannot allow to continue indefinitely. The Committee may have some reason to suspect that I am not a Protectionist. From observations which I have let fall from time to time they may have inferred that that is not a policy which I favour. But this is a most strange form of inverted Protection which no one could possibly defend—that we should have a law permitting foreigners to trawl within the seas of the British Isles and excluding Britishers from doing the same thing.

Near the mouth of the Moray Firth is the town of Lossiemouth where the British Prime Minister, himself a Scotsman, as we know has a home. I can imagine on a clear day the Prime Minister looking through glasses at the boats coming into the Moray Firth—some of them Dutchmen or Germans, others
Scotsmen or boats from Grimsby. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman watching them as they carry on their business. Possibly some of them may be tempted to indulge in trawling. Along comes a cruiser belonging to the Fishery Board of Scotland, and the British Prime Minister may have the pleasure of seeing through his glasses a British vessel, belonging to the State, stopping these Scottish and Grimsby trawlers carrying on their business and taking steps to arrest and secure the punishment of their skippers and crews, while the German or Dutch trawlers are allowed to proceed, unhampered by that cruiser, and to carry on, with the permission of the British State, an industry which our own nationals are forbidden to pursue. If events like that took place in the estuary of the Thames or in the estuary of the Severn, or in the Humber, the House of Commons would ring with it. If there were a Parliament at Edinburgh, as there ought to be, this would not be tolerated for a week. We know that the emblem of Scotland is the thistle and that her motto is:
Nemo me impune lacessit.
But the thistle seems to have dropped its prickles, and any foreign trawler can, with complete impunity, harass Scotland in this respect.

What are the possible courses which can be taken? One is to repeal the law, or for the Scottish Office to rescind its regulations, and to throw open trawling to everyone. Against that course there are very grave objections. I have already mentioned a committee which was appointed by the Scottish Office a few years ago—in 1923—on Scottish sea fisheries. That was a very authoritative committee. It was small but it consisted of men of note and weight in this matter. They reviewed the whole question of whether or not trawling should be freely allowed, and they came to the definite and unanimous conclusion that it should not be allowed. When we have an expert committee, taking evidence from all quarters and coming to a clear and unanimous conclusion, we ought naturally to be guided by that decision. I believe that some of my hon. Friends who served on a special committee which inquired into the matter and took evidence, have reported that the opinion of the great majority of the fishermen of Scotland is that trawling
should not be freely permitted, but that the immature fish and the spawning ground should be protected in the future as in the past. Indeed, it is even more necessary now that they should be so protected, because of the greater power and efficacy of the trawlers and the greater damage which they might do, and it is less necessary, from the trawling point of view, that they should be allowed to fish there, because they can go much further afield in these days than they were able to do a generation ago. That is one possible course which would probably be rejected 5.0 p.m. by almost unanimous consent. Another course that might be presented to the House is that the Government should say, "The position cannot be altered. We are bound by international law, and we cannot prevent the foreign trawlers coming in. It is not worth while to pursue the matter by way of negotiation, because of possible reprisals elsewhere, and we must tolerate in perpetuity the inequality that now prevails." I understand that that is not the case presented by the Government to-day. If it is to be presented, it ought to be clearly stated and the reasons given definitely as to the danger of reprisals. The places where those reprisals are likely to take place should be told either to the House or to a committee of the House, and then we could make up our minds and either accept or reject that proposition, that nothing can be done, but that the present situation must be endured in perpetuity.

The third course is that the Government should take vigorous action by way of international negotiation, for it is in the general interest, not only of this country but of all the countries interested in the North Sea fisheries, that these spawning grounds should be protected; and, as has already been mentioned in this Debate, when the question arose some years ago the Norwegian Government declared that it would very readily agree to special measures of protection. This is the course that was recommended by the committee to which I have referred—the Committee of which Lord Mackenzie was the chairman—and I would venture to read to this Committee one paragraph from their report:
The present position with regard to the admission of foreign trawlers into the Moray Firth appears to us to be very regrettable
from every British point of view and to demand immediate rectification. We earnestly hope that energetic measures will be taken to secure the international recognition of the closure of the Firth conjointly with the closure of the area in the southern North Sea in which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has recommended that trawling should be restricted. It is much to be desired that all sections of the British industry should unite in lending their support to such measures and assist in removing an anomaly which has too long been allowed to remain a source of difficulty and friction.
That was seven years ago, and, so far as the House has been informed, no steps whatever have been taken until this day in the direction recommended so unanimously by that authoritative body. I have read the Debate in the House of Lords that took place as long ago as 1907, when the question, as has been mentioned, was in an acute stage, and when it was raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who had been Secretary for Scotland, and he mentioned that the subject had been agitated and discussed for 15 or 16 years. That was prior to 1907, so that for 40 years this question now has been under Debate.

The fourth course is to do nothing at all, to let the matter drift, to say, as the Secretary of State said to-day, "This is a very difficult matter. There is a conflict between our municipal and the international law. It will cause great difficulties, even if it is discussed in the House of Commons. It is true that we have done nothing, but our predecessors did nothing either"; to ride off on the ground that if other Governments have failed, they should not be expected to succeed, and finally to use the magic words and to say, "The matter is under consideration." That is the defence also of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. I believe that if some Parliamentary statistician were to go through the volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT of this Parliament and were to make a calculation as to how many times the Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to questions and in the course of Debates, has said that this matter or the other was under consideration, he would come to a total certainly of hundreds and possibly even of thousands of cases. While we all rejoice to hear the speeches of the Secretary of State for Scotland,
the only time in which he shows real spirit, zeal, and even enthusiasm is when he endeavours to convince the House of Commons that something ought to remain under consideration before any further step is taken.

I mentioned just now the emblems and the motto of Scotland. If ever the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland were to go to the House of Lords, in order to reinforce the strength of the Government in that Chamber, he would need, I presume, a coat-of-arms, and, although I am not an expert in heraldry, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman this coat-of-arms: I would suggest that the shield should show three herrings gules rampant on a sea azure, that his crest should be a tortoise couchant somnolent proper, that his supporters should naturally be two officials of the Scottish Office passant regardant, and that his motto should be "Under consideration." He told us to-day that in this matter he was leaving no stone unturned. Has he turned a single one? What stone has he turned? Will he tell us any action of any kind that has been taken in this matter of the Moray Firth? The impression left by his speech on some of us who heard it was that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing, is doing nothing, and will do nothing. I would beg him not to urge that, because right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway or Liberal Governments in days past did not handle this matter effectively, he is not to blame if he does nothing either. If each Government in turn gives as an excuse for inactivity that its predecessors have been inactive, we shall reach the year 2,000, and the Moray Firth position will still be the same as it is to-day.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot take any vigorous and effective measures at once in the way of international negotiations, if he cannot, through Geneva or through any other international channel, bring this question to a head, then I would suggest that the House of Commons will be obliged to appoint a Select Committee, not as an excuse for further delay, but in order to get before it the Ministers and their officials, not of this one Department but of other Departments as well, take its own evidence, and make up its own mind as to
what course should be pursued. I feel convinced, and I hope I have succeeded in convincing even the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the Government must either act in this matter or else give definite, specific reasons why action is not possible. For the House of Commons, for its own credit's sake, ought not to allow this clearly established grievance of a body of subjects of the Crown to remain indefinitely without effective attention and without redress.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I should not have intervened in this Debate except that I want the Committee to know that there is a little more water around Scotland than the Moray Firth. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has given a very humorous description of the coat-of-arms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he goes to another place. I would suggest that he might have two other supporters, and that two cod would be his proper supporters. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that blaming other Governments will not help us in this matter. We want something done. It is perfectly true that Governments in this matter have been very supine and have been afraid to act, and I am afraid that, although the formula may have been different in the mouths of other Secretaries of State for Scotland, the result has always been the same. So far as I am concerned, I would act on the motto of Scotland. Nobody would insult me with impunity, especially in a matter of this kind. But we Scotsmen are cribbed, cabined and confined by the Sassenach, and it is they who prevent the thistle from "jagging" as keenly as it used to do. I am expecting that the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) will assist me, because he is interested in the same arm of the sea, but I suggest that the Firth of Clyde should conform to the definition given by the learned Lord Advocate.
The Moray Firth deserves all the consideration which it can get, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to something else. There are depredations made besides those of the foreign trawlers in our fishing grounds. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) mentioned a place called Balintore. I can tell him
about a place called Ballantrae, one of the most active and famous fishing banks that this country has had. I have been very interested during this Debate in watching the features of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). There has been a perpetual grin on his countenance. He seems to have been finding great amusement in the fact that many of our fishers have been suffering from the loss of nets. I do not know what his smile meant, but that is how I interpreted it at this distance.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: This is a personal matter. When I was smiling, I was smiling at the argument used by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) when he talked about herrings spawning on the bed. He forgot that the herring is a pelagic.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I never did.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Yes, you did.

Mr. BROWN: I can sympathise with the hon. Member for Grimsby, because I happen, on one side of me, to be of fishing stock myself, and I know some little about it. I do not profess to be an expert on spawning questions, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty knows perfectly well that the herring spawn is not lying in beds, as is suggested. I want to speak about the western side of Scotland. I do not disparage any arguments used about the north-east of Scotland, but it is also true that the livelihood of a great many of those men who were eulogised by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty come from the west as well as from the east of Scotland, and I want the protection of the Government. Whatever Government gives protection, I will say that that Government deserves well of the country. The Government may not have been as active as they might have been; nor was the Unionist Government; and I would suggest that, if any blame attaches to the Labour Government, they are so young that they ought to get off under the Young Offenders Act. The Government will deserve well of Scotland if they tackle this thorny question and see that, whatever the result, no foreigner gets any advantage over the native-born fishermen. If they take such action, they will get the
support of the Whole House, and I think that even the English and Welsh Members will support them. I know of a little fishing village called the Maidens where line fishing has been pursued for many generations. That was destroyed, not by foreigners, but by trawlers from Grimsby and other places.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: They do not go there.

Mr. BROWN: They do not come now, because there is nothing to come for, but they did come when there was something to come for. The line fishing there is almost extinct, and the men with expert knowledge of the waters found their livelihood gone when they came back from the War, not because of the depredations of foreigners, but because of the depredations of our near neighbours over the Tweed. It is worse to be dispossessed by our own brothers than it is to be dispossessed by foreigners, and I have urged over and over again that action should be taken. The matter does not require consideration at all; it requires action. We want something to be done immediately if this great asset to Scotland is to be preserved for Scotsmen.
I will not tell the story of what has happened in the last few years in Scotland, how the fishing has deteriorated, and how men have been dispossessed, but I would urge upon the Government to take up the work that has been neglected by former Governments. I will not recall the past of the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in former Governments now that he has joined forces with us. If we are to be comrades in arms, let the past dead bury its dead, and let us all go forward to make Scottish fishing what it ought to be, something of which we shall all be proud, and which will ensure a livelihood to men who deserve well at the hands of this or any other Government. I want to remind the Committee, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire will do, that we require protection from all round, and that we are going to demand protection. I am glad that this Debate has elicited from an English Member the fact that he thinks that
Scotland should have Home Rule. I do urge upon the Government to give us any assistance they can, to come to our rescue to remedy a long growing evil, and to get something done so that our fishermen can get the protection that they so justly deserve.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has left the Committee. It is a great compliment to our Scottish Members that he should have intervened in the Debate. For we know how much better he can state the case than any of us barbarous Scots. When he told us that this grievance had been going on for 40 years, I remembered that it took that time for the children of Israel to reach the Promised Land, and I thought perhaps that he was going to be the Moses who would lead the children of Scotland into a safe harbour from the depredation of the trawlers. His speech was very similar to the speeches of the two other Liberal Members who preceded him, although perhaps it was more vigorously made. They all said very much the same thing. I am glad to hear that the Liberal party have repented of the crime of 1907 when they set aside the legal decision of 13 Scottish Judges. It required three of them to say the same thing, and it is as well, when you are dealing with the Liberal party, that you should have three witnesses to vouch almost identical statements.
I do not see any particular difficulty in this question. We are told by the Lord Advocate that there are other enclosed lands in other countries whose jaws open out and that our trawlers get leave to go into them. Why should the Grimsby trawlers be allowed to pirate our fishing grounds any more than they can those of other countries? At the back of the Fishery Board there is undoubtedly a bias in favour of the trawlers against the shore fishermen. They represent a bigger financial interest, and have more power and weight. The line fisherman is an isolated individualist and does not get fair play.
Why do not we take a leaf out of the book of Denmark or Iceland? If any of our trawlers from Grimsby or Hull, the two pirate ports, choose to go to those places, what happens? They are not taken
in and fined and cheerfully pay £100, and then show defiance by blowing their whistles as they do when leaving our courts, because they have caught £1,000 worth of fish. In Iceland and Denmark they seize the boat for 12 months and put the captain into gaol and fine him £2,000. [Interruption.] Then the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) asks questions in the House about it. These countries know how to deal with those people who steal the daily bread of the fishermen and the crofter fishermen. I represent a lot of crofter fishermen who used to live a comfortable existence, much more comfortable than the town worker. They had their little bit of land and fishing boats, and between the two and the selling of a couple of beasts a year, they could make a comfortable living. But some time ago the fishermen from the two pirate ports in England swept away the livelihood of these crofter fishermen. In Portnahaven in Islay there used to be 30 boats, each with four or five men who were fine specimens of mankind. Along came the trawlers from Grimsby and Hull and other English ports, which went so close into the shore that they sometimes ran on the rocks and were wrecked. There was no obeying the three-mile limit there.
That kind of thing has gone on right through the western islands, and that has caused one of the main difficulties in the land question, because the small man cannot help to get his daily bread now by fishing. There is no need for the trawlers to do this, because they can go far out to sea. If they fit their boat with a Diesel engine, it costs them practically nothing for fuel, and they can go to the deep waters. There is no need for them to trawl in the shallow waters anywhere, or to go into the enclosed waters damaging the shore fishermen. Yet they persist in doing it. I would urge the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to tell the Foreign Office to take a leaf out of the book of the old Stuart kings of whom we in the Highlands still think so much. In Charles II's time, when we had control of our own destinies—though his grandfather had left Scotland, which was the start of much evil to Scotland—no English or foreign boat could fish within 28 miles of the Scottish coast. We had a Scottish Navy which chased them out. Why cannot
the Government take a lesson from their dearly beloved friends in Russia? They have a 12-mile limit, and they enforce it seriously. They do not ask questions of the League of Nations or anyone else. They fend for themselves. There is also a 12-mile limit in the United States on the question of bootleg whiskey. It is said to be done in the interest of enforcing the law, but those who know the inner history of the movement know that it is done to guard the interests of certain bootleggers in order that they may keep the monopoly of the trade themselves.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must now come back from bootlegging to the trawlers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If they can get a 12-mile limit in other countries, why cannot we? It is because the Liberal party, the anti-national party, in 1907 sold the pass, as they always did when there was an opportunity of helping the foreigner. They were always ready to take the foreign interest to their bosom if they could injure their fellow countrymen and what was done in 1907 was a typical act of Liberalism.

The CHAIRMAN: Again, I must ask the hon. and learned Member to get back to the subject. He puts a good deal of ornamentation into his speech.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I always understood that in public speaking, if you are to interest your audience, you must have a certain amount of ornament. I will, however, speak in the plantigrade fashion of which many other Members are more capable than I am, and I will try and make myself as dull as possible. The Secretary of State for Scotland said herring were becoming more difficult to dispose of, and there is no doubt that that is so. We have gone away from the simple days when the herring was recognised as one of the best of human foods, as it still is. One of the reasons for that is that though it comes to the beach as the cheapest of all food, by the time the transport charges have been paid and it has borne all the expenses of marketing, and the rates, rents and taxes the shopkeeper has to pay, it is not so cheap as it ought to be. That is what is wrong. The fishermen get very little for it. Producers in this country get very little for anything, because the tax collector and
the rate collector come first. One form of herring which was very popular in this country was the kipper. There is no finer food than a really well smoked kipper—smoked with oak chips, as it ought to be. It was a splendid fish and in great demand. Suddenly, with the usual sophistication that is seen in relation to all our foodstuffs, some bright gentleman south of the border, who had noted the rich brown tint of the kipper, thought that if he could smoke the kippers a little and then dye them to the required tint they would look like genuine bona fide kippers, and he would save a great deal of money on oak chips. He could take any old sawdust or anything of that sort, for the purpose of smoking them.
A large industry on those lines sprang up over the border. I cannot exactly locate it, but I am not prepared, without proof to the contrary, to exclude the constituencies of the hon. Member for Grimsby and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Those dyed kippers are all over the market. We produce splendid kippers in Scotland. In Carradale there was a kipperer who was immortalised in one of the works of Stephen Leacock on account of the quality of his brand. There were no kippers like them, because the man was such an artist at the task of preparing them. Every man ought to be an artist at his job, no matter how humble it be. If you wrote to that man to ask him to send you some kippers, it was possible that you might get in return a polite letter saying that he was not fully satisfied with the quality of the herrings which were available at that time, and therefore he would not kipper them.

Mr. BOOTHBY: My constituents prepare kippers, and I cannot allow the statement to go out to the country unchallenged that all kippers now are prepared with sawdust and dye.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was speaking of kippers prepared south of the border. I know that the Aberdeen kipper—the Aberdeen haddock—is one of the finest to be had. It is splendid. I have been talking about a practice that has sprung up south of the border, the result of which is that an Englishman who buys a kipper gets one of these dyed kippers,
which have a musty flavour, and he says, "Do not order kippers again." The genuine oak-smoked kipper suffers in consequence, and is being driven out of the market. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland for whisky?"] If the hon. Member will come to Islay I will introduce him to some whisky which he would find very satisfactory.
On the subject of harbours I would remind the Committee that there are two Government dredgers. I hope the Ardrishaig harbour has been dredged by one of them. For a long time it was not, the reason given being that there is an inner basin belonging to the Government, and the consequence of not dredging the harbour was that the fishermen were forced to go into the basin and to pay dues. It has not been dredged for 60 years. If it were dredged the boats could make use of it. There is another splendid harbour that would suit the fishermen of Tarbert and Campbeltown. It is Loch-ranger harbour. That harbour has been silted up by hill streams in the last 100 years. If it were dredged it would be of great service to all the fishermen in the Kilbrannan Sound. Instead of having to hire chars-a-banc and go home from Tarbert about 37 miles they could catch the steamer. The Duke of Montrose very generously offered the harbour for nothing to the Fihsery Board, and undertook to look after it. The predecessor of the present Secretary of State had some estimates prepared, but the Duke does not agree with his figures as to the cost of dredging. The value to the fishermen would be enormous, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this matter and send one of the dredgers there to clear out the harbour.
I am glad to hear that the Diesel engine is being put into fishing boats. It will prove the salvation of the small fishermen. Recently I was in one of the magnificent steamers plying off the West Highland coast driven by a Diesel engine. I had a discussion with the engineer, who told me that the cost for fuel oil was only about one-sixth of what the cost would be for heating boilers with oil fuel. There is an enormous economy. On land one can drive a great lorry for one halfpenny a mile on heavy oil, whereas the cost would be 3d, or 4d. with petrol. The Diesel engine, with heavy fuel oil, is going to be the solution of all our transport difficulties, and I hope
the Government will give the fishermen every encouragement to instal the Diesel engines in their fishing boats, because that would do a great deal to lighten the burden of the cost of transport which is at present on the shoulders of the fishermen.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not propose to weary the Committee by restating the case of the Moray Firth, which has been so ably put forward, but there is one aspect of it which I would like to present. Opinion has changed with regard to the protection of the young of fish generally. Before the War, it was the general opinion of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea that the best line of procedure was to prevent the capture of immature fish. Now, it is generally agreed that the proper line to take is the protection of the spawning grounds. That is an important point, because the Moray Firth is only one part of the North Sea, it has more than a mere relationship to our shores, and I think it would be easier now to arrange a convention with other Powers who are interested in fishing in the North Sea than would have been the case 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, it is most desirable that the suggestion made by the Lord Advocate should be followed up, because I believe it is the only practicable way out of the difficulty—that is, to get the various countries interested to agree that certain areas in the North Sea, not necessarily the Moray Firth only, should be closed to certain forms of fishing. If we proceed on those lines I think that something may be effected.
As to the necessity of taking action speedily, I would quote some important figures from the report of the Fishery Board for 1929. It is a report on the observation of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth over a series of years. I will not name the nationalities of the trawlers, but quote only the number of occasions on which foreign trawlers were observed in that area, and the Committee will notice how considerably the numbers have increased during the last two years. Between the years 1922–23 and 1928–29 the number of occasions in each year on which foreign trawlers were observed was as follows: 18, 43, 66, 55, 99, 107. Those figures show that foreign trawlers are coming into the Firth in largely increasing numbers, and it is a matter of astonishment
that some of the local fishermen have not taken the law into their own hands. I would respectfully draw the attention of the Government to the danger that is implied in these figures. We cannot expect that the local people will stand quietly by year after year and see the numbers of these trawlers increasing while nothing is done.
I put that forward as a very strong argument why the Government should get out of their present attitude of consideration and pass to action. The Lord Advocate has suggested the difficulties in the matter, and we all realise that there are great difficulties. No doubt it was on account of those difficulties that previous Governments did not tackle the matter, but it is one which needs to be dealt with now more than ever, and I trust it will be definitely taken up, and that the Government will endeavour to get together all the countries interested in fishing in the North Sea to see whether an agreement cannot be come to by which certain areas, including the disputed area in the Moray Firth, shall be set aside and kept free from trawlers, because it is an important spawning and breeding ground for the North Sea.
I pass to another important matter, the state of the drifter fleet in Scotland. The Secretary of State said he was taking a great interest in the matter, and we all know that he does show great interest in the fishing industry; but we have been waiting a long time to know the result of his deliberations. He had the advantage when he came into office of a report prepared at the instance of the Liberal party by a number of experts in the industry. They laid special stress on the importance of the renewal of the herring fishing fleet, which, they said, was rapidly getting into a desperate condition. I am not aware that anything has yet been done. We are waiting for the result of the work of the committee which has been inquiring into the matter. Incidentally, I would bring to the notice of this Committee a resolution passed on 7th April by the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland referring to the vital necessity of doing something to help the fishermen to replace their fleet, which is rapidly getting obsolete. The resolution read:
That the Convention, for the fourth time, draws the attention of His Majesty's Government to the parlous condition of the herring fishing fleet. The fishing vessels are
old and outworn, and the fishermen, through exhaustion of capital, are unable to replace these vessels. The Convention therefore requests the Government to give assistance to the fishermen in the acquisition of new vessels, and that the matter be remitted to the annual committee with conventional powers.
The Convention of Royal Burghs are a Very important body in Scotland. This is a matter which they have had before them year after year for four years, and as each year goes by it becomes more urgent. Many of us believe that great assistance can be given to the industry by the devising of a cheaper vessel and one to be run more cheaply than the old steam drifter; but even if such a vessel were designed, the share fishermen of the present day have not sufficient credit of their own to enable them to purchase such vessels. The inquiry to which I have referred came to the conclusion that it would be necessary, if the fishing fleet were to be replaced by better vessels, more suited to their work and less costly to run, for some assistance, in the way of loan, perhaps, to be given to fishermen to enable them to purchase them. They would be in a position in the course of time to repay the loan which was made to them. Without assistance of some sort I am afraid it will be impossible for the share fishermen of Scotland to replace their obsolete vessels.
I pass from that to another point, which is rather more local and affects my own constituency. Within the last few weeks the fishermen in the Shetland area have been placed in an extremely difficult position, as the Secretary of State for Scotland well knows, by a resolution passed by the British Herring Fishing Association in the following terms:
Exporters agree not to buy or take on consignment, and shipbrokers similarly agree not to handle during the whole Scottish season any herrings cured by members or non-members of the association who have infringed the starting dates. Further curers bind themselves not to sell or consign herrings to any exporter or Continental importer who has purchased or taken on consignment herrings from curers who have infringed the starting dates.
It will be observed that anyone who does not fall within the terms of that resolution is completely boycotted. The association fix the starting date for the East Coast of Scotland for 16th June, for Stornoway 2nd June, and Shetland 16th June, whereas it is thoroughly well
known that the herring on the west side of the Shetlands mature much earlier and are ready for catching on 2nd June. It may be said that this is a matter which has been dealt with entirely by an association for which the Government are not responsible, but I would like to recall the fact that that resolution was passed at a meeting at which the chairman was a member of the Fishery Board. I have no doubt that he was acting in his private capacity as one interested in the fishing industry and not as a member of the Fishery Board, but it certainly gave rise to comment, and the passing of the resolution was very detrimental to the interests of a certain portion of the industry. We have not a large proportion of curers in Shetland, and many of them are not members of the association. The resolution to which I have referred was passed by an entirely outside body. We are now in the position of being unable to export our early herrings to the markets abroad, with the result that the curers, who are interested in Autumn fishing in Yarmouth, have got too many herrings and have found difficulty in disposing of them, so that we have been deprived of the natural advantage of early fishing in Shetland.
I know the Under-Secretary will say that it is too late to do anything this year, but I ask the Fishery Board to have this matter thoroughly gone into in the course of the next few months, so that steps may be taken to see that in any resolution or agreement that may be come to with regard to the starting dates of herring fishing next year shall be fair to Shetland. We ask that the local fishermen should be given the opportunity of reaping the advantages which have been given to other fishermen, and that their interests should not be sacrificed to the interests of the fishing industry outside Shetland. I do not think that I am asking too much when I ask the Fishery Board and the Scottish Office to take an interest in this matter, because it is their duty to see that the interests of fishermen all over Scotland are protected, and I certainly feel that during the last two or three years we have not been protected by what has been done in this respect. I understand that the Fishery Board take the view that it is in the interests of the industry as a whole that the starting date should
be kept back to the date which has been fixed for the rest of the east coast of Scotland. That might be the case if no steps could be taken to prevent southern boats coming north and flooding the market with immature fish from the East side, but I contend that that can be prevented, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to see that this matter is thoroughly gone into, so that when next year's fishing season comes round Shetland will feel that she has been fairly dealt with and protected by the Fishery Board.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I agree with the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) that the question of the starting of the fishing season ought to be investigated, and I think the fishery trade would be well advised to go carefully into the whole matter. I would, however, like the Secretary of State for Scotland to bear in mind that there is another side to this question, which is even more important than the local point of view, which has very properly been put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the enormous value of rationalisation which has only recently taken place in the fishing industry. What has taken place is a genuine attempt to co-operate, to collaborate, and to control production. During the last two or three years the fish curers have been left with large quantities of herrings which have proved to be absolutely unsaleable, and I think the association which represents them has taken the right course in asking for a postponement of the opening of the fishing season. Surely it is better to postpone the catch, instead of catching fish when they are immature. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland carries on his inquiries through the Fishery Board I think he will find that the Herring Association has acted wisely and in the best interests of the industry as a whole.

Sir R. HAMILTON: My contention is that the herrings on the West side are not immature at the time I am asking for fishing to start.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The answer which would be given to that argument by the
Herring Association is that there is a likelihood of too many herrings being caught, and that to remedy this difficulty it is much better to slow down at the beginning than the end of the season. On that point I think the association is right. I was rather astonished at the intervention of the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in this Debate, because he is not a Scottish Member, and there is no reason to suppose that he has any particular knowledge of the Scottish fishing industry. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government which was responsible for drawing up the arrangements which have caused the present trouble in the Moray Firth, and when the right hon. Gentleman rose to take part in this Debate I thought that he was going to explain to the Committee the reasons which governed the policy of the Government of which he was a Member in reaching what appears to us to be a most extraordinary decision. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen had no knowledge of the reasons which actuated the Government of which he was a Member; he did not impart any information on that crucial point to the Committee, but contented himself by pointing out to the Committee what an extremely bad thing it was for the fisherman in the Moray Firth that foreign trawlers should be allowed to come in and drag their nets fishing for cod when British trawlers were not allowed to do so. I suggest that every Member of this Committee was well aware of this fact, and of every other fact which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to put forward, most of which had been stated quite clearly two or three times in this Debate. In view of these facts, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen intervened in the Debate.
The speech of the Lord Advocate would have been a little more hopeful if we had not such dire previous experience of the present administration, but I think the right hon. Gentleman put forward three or four useful points in regard to the way in which the Moray Firth question could be dealt with. I was very glad indeed that the Lord Advocate directed particular attention to the judgments of Lord Dunedin and Lord Kyllachy in the case of Mortensen v.
Peters, which was argued before the Supreme Court of Justiciary in 1906. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, in dealing with this question, and when he is putting the case before the Cabinet, to pay particular attention to the two judgments I have mentioned, because they deal with this question from the widest and most general point of view. In regard to the question of the Moray Firth, we cannot get away from the fact that a decision of the Supreme Court of Scotland was in fact quashed by the English Attorney-General against the advice of the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown. The purpose of the Act of 1889 was to create a breeding ground in the Moray Firth, but that has now been effectively destroyed, and the result of the action taken by the Liberal administration of 1906 has been to allow foreign trawlers to come into the Moray Firth and monopolise British fishing grounds in a way that is quite intolerable.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen truly said that a Scottish trawler had very bad luck when it came to fish in the Moray Firth. A German trawler approached the Scottish trawler and threatened to report it for infringing the law, and the Scottish trawler had to come away. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland, and every hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, will agree that this is an intolerable position for Scotland to be placed in at the present time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) stated that a previous Government was very remiss on this question, but surely that is no reason why the present Government should be remiss. I agree that Governments have been remiss on this question for many years past, but I think it is true to state that no Government has ever been so remiss on this question as the present Government during the last few years, and the depredations of foreign trawlers have never been so bad as they have been during the last 12 months. Therefore, we must hope and pray that on this question something will happen, and that action on the part of the Government will take the place of consideration.
I am very glad that we have had such a good Debate upon the Scottish fishing
industry this afternoon, because we do not often get an opportunity of dealing with it, and the fishing industry means more to Scotland in proportion 6.0 p.m. to the population than the fishing industry of any-other country in the world except Iceland and Norway. That is frequently forgotten by the people of this country, and particularly by the people of England. The fishing industry is vital from the point of view of national defence, and it is obviously the duty of any Government to do everything in its power to foster and encourage it in every possible way. I do not propose to go in detail into the problems of the white fishing industry, except to ask the Under-Secretary if he can, when he replies, give us any information with regard to experiments—not only research work into where the grounds may be, but also whether any experiments are being carried out on various methods of preserving the fish, particularly on board trawlers; and, if experiments of that character are not being carried out, whether he does not think it would be worth the while of the research department of the Fishery Board to conduct some experiments on that matter? There are, as the hon. Gentleman probably well knows, new methods coming out almost every day for preserving fish actually in the trawlers and some of those methods may prove to be extremely valuable to the industry.
Coming to the herring fishing industry the Secretary of State has been making a point, both in the House and in Scotland, about the question of finance. The Secretary of State went to Peterhead the other day and made a speech, in which he said:
I have got more than any Secretary of State in modern times has been able to squeeze out of the Treasury. (Applause.) Between grants and loans, I have managed to get over £500,000 in one and three-quarter years. (Loud Applause.) If I happen to be as successful in the future as I have been between 1929 and now "—
I like the downright modesty of the right hon. Gentleman—
I am certain that neither you nor I will be ill pleased. (Cheers.)
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said at Peterhead, and I myself make
no complaint; I am glad that he is so pleased with himself and with life in general.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Is not Peterhead pleased, too?

Mr. BOOTHBY: They are not very pleased with the situation; it has never been worse in the whole history of the fishing industry. What are the real facts about the question of harbour finance? These harbour debts were incurred during the War, and largely as a result of the War, and they are chiefly owing to the Public Works Loan Board. The Public Works Loan Board is an independent body, not operating under the direct control of the Government. It is a statutory body operating within limits under the Statute, but not subject to direct control or interference from the Government of the day. After the War, no interest was charged upon most of these loans. In the case of Fraserburgh, for instance, no interest was charged by successive Governments.
It was perfectly clear, however, that sooner or later a large amount of the dead weight of debt which had been incurred by these harbours would have to be written off; and in the late autumn of 1928, before the last administration left office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up an inquiry into each of these harbour debt positions. He announced in his Budget statement of 1929 that that inquiry had been set up, and that as a result the case of each harbour would be considered afresh upon its merits, with a view to suspensions or remissions of debts in certain cases. The General Election followed almost immediately, and the present Government came into office. Presumably the inquiry which was set up by my right hon. Friend reported, and, as the result of that report, the Development Commission remitted loans up to a total of £131,000, and the Public Works Loan Board up to £110,000. Most of that remission by the Public Works Loan Board was made to the Fraserburgh Harbour Authority.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, and everyone else knows perfectly well, that the writing off of these debts is a purely paper transaction, which means nothing from an immediate practical point of view either
to Fraserburgh, to Peterhead, or to the fishing industry as a whole. Everyone knew that sooner or later those debts would have to be written off, and everyone knows what the practice of any Government is with regard to these more or less subsidiary financial matters. Their practice is to be guided by the advice they receive from the officials at the Treasury, from the Public Works Loan Board, and from the officials of the Development Commission. The advice tendered to the present Government by the officials of the Public Works Loan Board was that this was a bad debt and they could get nothing out of it; and the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and goes to Fraserburgh and preens himself on having made a tremendous financial contribution to the herring fishery industry. Does he believe that any Government could ever get that debt from Fraserburgh harbour? Not this side of time could it ever have been done.
The right hon. Gentleman proceeded, in his speeches in the North-East of Scotland, to draw striking comparisons between the amount of money that he had managed to squeeze out of the Treasury for the benefit of the herring fishing industry, and the amount that ray right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) managed to squeeze out, and the comparisons were very unfavourable to my right hon. Friend; but, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a comparison, he ought at least to be fair as between the expenditure on the fishing industry by the two Governments. He never referred in any of his speeches to the financial benefits which have accrued to the harbours, and to the towns behind the harbours, as a result of the de-rating scheme which was put into operation, and which applied specially, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, to harbours; nor did he make any reference to the sum of £20,000 per annum which was allocated specially by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the herring fishing industry for the purpose of reducing harbour dues, representing a capital value of no less than £500,000. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he was going to make these comparisons, might at least have made fair comparisons.
So far, however, as the Development Commission is concerned, and its activities at the present moment, I do think that the right hon. Gentleman is to be sincerely congratulated upon the expansion he has managed to induce that somewhat slow and recalcitrant body to make during the last few months. I think he has done well in inducing them to get a move on with harbour schemes right round the coast, and I hope he will continue that work and that it will be increased and become more successful; because it is productive work as opposed to unproductive work, and that is the kind of expenditure that we want at the present time. I have in mind at the moment particularly the considerable scheme for deepening of Port Henry dock and the construction of a new slipway at Peterhead. These schemes will not merely reduce the unemployment figures, but will ultimately result in a money return to the industry, to the benefit of the industry as a whole.
There is another point to which I would like to direct the special attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a purely local point, and I think he knows about it already. There are three towns about five or six miles south of Fraserburgh, namely, Cairnbulg, Inverallochy and St. Combs, which have no harbours worth speaking about at the present time, but which, if they were provided with harbours, could conduct a very successful line-fishing along a particularly lucrative stretch of sea near the coast. Unless they are provided with harbours, I am very apprehensive about the future of these villages—they can hardly be called towns—and I think that their population, which is a sturdy population, will probably drift into Fraserburgh and the villages will become desolate. That is not desirable from any point of view, and I think that a harbour should at any rate be constructed at once at Cairnbulg, which would make it possible to fish from that port. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give special consideration to this matter.
When he went to speak to the herring fishermen in the North-east of Scotland the other day, he told them at the conclusion of his speech that rationalisation and reorganisation is a thing upon which
they ought to concentrate, and I quite agree with him. It is probably the most important thing for every industry in this country at the present time. But, as I said in my opening remarks, it has been carried out to a very great extent in the herring fishing industry; and, though Ear greater co-operaton should be possible between the fishermen, the salesmen and the curers than has been achieved at present, there is a great deal more now than there was two or three years ago; and I think the right hon. Gentleman may be fairly happy about that aspect of the problem as regards the herring fishing industry, because things are going very well.
The real fundamental difficulty at the present time is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the difficulty of markets. There is not an adequate market at the present moment for the herrings that are caught, and that is the root cause of the financial difficulties and the distress which is so severe at the present time in the herring fishing industry. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what is he doing, and what are the Government proposing to do, to help the industry to regain markets which have been lost and to obtain new markets? I do not see any hope for the future prosperity or expansion of the herring fishing industry, which is a vital industry for Scotland, unless those markets can be obtained.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the principal export market before the War was that of Russia, and I want to ask him whether he is taking any administrative action in his Department to extend that market. Is he taking any action, for example, to try and bring the leaders of the herring fishing industry and the leaders of the Russian Trade Delegation into immediate touch? There is a vast field for administrative action here, and I believe that only administrative action is necessary in the early stages so far as the Russian market is concerned. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider what the figures are at the present moment—the general trade figures between this country and Russia—because they are really of vital importance to the industry. Since 1924, the trade surpluses of the Soviet Government as against this country have amounted to £138,000,000, or
an annual average trade surplus of nearly £20,000,000. Taking the figures for 1930 alone, the imports which we took from Russia amounted to £34,250,000, while the exports which we sent to Russia amounted to £6,750,000, or, with re-exports, to £9,250,000. Therefore, last year alone, the Russians had a visible balance of trade in their favour and against this country of £25,000,000. I say it is an outrage that none of that surplus, or virtually none of it, should be spent in the direct purchase of herrings from this country. We take goods from them; why should not they take goods from us, and particularly goods of which they themselves stand in urgent need at the present time?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that under their five-year plan they have a great economic scale of imports and exports planned out for the next two or three years. Their fundamental objective is to make themselves self-supporting. They want to increase their exports by 165 per cent., and their imports by only 80 per cent. The proposal of the Soviet Government at the present moment is to export goods to the value of 7,000,000,000 roubles, and to import goods to the value of 6,180,000,000 roubles, by 1933, which will give them a favourable balance, they calculate, of 800,000,000 roubles, or £16,000,000 per years. That is a very menacing and serious proposal. We shall have to deal with these plans of the Soviet Government in this country sooner or later. If the right hon. Gentleman remains in his present position, I am afraid it will be later rather than sooner; but I think he might impress upon the Cabinet and the Government the necessity of considering this problem of how to deal with the enormous discrepancy between the amount that we send to Russia and the amount that they send to us, and how to deal with the general question of Russian trade. I do not see how it can be done except by direct Government action.

The CHAIRMAN: This argument might be applied to any industry. The hon. Member must keep to the question of the Fishery Board.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I agree that it is rather general. I will come back to the particular aspect of it. There is no
commodity produced in the country which, the Russians desire more than herrings if some means can be arranged whereby they can be enabled or made to purchase them, and there is certainly no commodity that we produce for which the Russian market is more necessary. I am convinced that, if the Government would take drastic administrative action in the matter—that is all that would be required in the initial stages—the sale of herrings to Russia could be enormously increased. The industry itself is not strong enough to deal with the situation. You cannot ask a comparatively small industry to negotiate direct with a vast institution like the Soviet Government without the backing of the Government of the country, even if it is only a moral backing. The industry has received no direct help or support from the Administration in its efforts to dispose of herrings in the Russian market. It is not merely a question of the Russian market. At the last election, Labour candidates throughout the North-East of Scotland went about promising the fishermen that, if only a Labour Government were returned, prosperity would return to the herring fishing industry, because the whole European market would be so enormously increased. In view of that, we are entitled to ask what efforts, if any, the Government are making to extend the market for cured herrings in this country; in Europe; where it is capable of immense extension; in Russia; or in the British Empire, particularly Canada; and whether the attention of the Empire Marketing Board, for example, and the Imperial Economic Committee, and the various other bodies in London, has been called specifically to the herring industry, which might be so greatly assisted by administrative action of that kind.
I should like to say a word or two on the subject of research work generally. We have waited far too long for the report of the committee that has been inquiring into the herring industry. I agree absolutely with the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland that one of the most urgent necessities for the fishing industry during the next 10 years will be some form of financial assistance in order to replace craft. I do not think much can be done in the way of insuring or providing financial assistance for the purchase of gear, but some
scheme will have to be devised to help share fishermen to replace craft as they become obsolete. It is important that the Government and the Fishery Board should take a hand in carrying out experiments with new types of craft and, above all, with the Diesel engine. Can we be given any information as to experiments which have been carried out with regard to new types of craft, and is there any hope of a scheme to provide fishermen with financial facilities in order to replace the fleet as it becomes obsolete? I know it is the fashion for hon. Members opposite to deprecate the value of Government action in any direction. They do not think the State ought to interfere in the slightest with industry or trade in any possible way. They were Socialists before they got into office but they are now the greatest individualists who ever attempted to govern any country in the history of the world. They shudder with fright when the word "industry" or "trade" is mentioned. The one thing they have avoided is taking any sort of action to interfere with or to assist industry in any way. I have infinitely more Socialism in me than any Member of the present administration. I would urge upon them with all the force I can command the necessity of more vigorous action on the part of the State to assist industry, and to help the country to get back on to its feet. Unless you do something to assist industry to control markets, to control production and, above all, to control imports, which is the most important of the lot, not only the fishing industry but many other industries will be let down. Yon cannot afford to let down the fishing industry, even if you can afford to let down some of our manufacturing industries, because if you do let it down, you will destroy a class of men which it will he quite impossible to replace.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to emphasise the opportunity which has been afforded to the right hon. Gentleman to give effect to the undertaking he gave that he was prepared to listen to any constructive proposal that might be put before him. He has had a number of exceedingly useful and practical proposals put before him in the course of the Debate, and we not only expect him to listen to them but to give effect to some of them. We have felt very much
restricted by the fact that the committee which is considering the whole question of fisheries has not yet reported. The situation is developing in rather a serious way. Instead of being a help to the industry, unless it reports soon, it will be holding up a good many useful reforms which ought to have been carried out before this stage. The Debate on the Moray Firth has been exceedingly useful in bringing out what seems to be the most important point of all. We are dealing here, not merely with a purely national interest as far as Scotland is concerned, but with the interests of the fisheries in the North Sea as a whole. The view that we maintain is not only calculated to advantage Scottish fishermen, but is going to be to the advantage of all those who take part in the fisheries in the North Sea. We are dealing with a problem which has been limited to the prevention of a mode of fishing which has been found to be destructive to one of the finest spawning grounds along our coast. The real solution of the problem is to get some understanding among those who are interested in the North Sea fisheries for the preservation of a particular spawning ground, a nursery of the fish, which is calculated to be seriously injured under present conditions. It is not quite fair to suggest that the Government which was responsible at the time for the action that was taken following the Mortensen v. Peters judgment did nothing. As a matter of fact, it prevented the landing of all fish caught within prohibited areas, which had a very material effect on trawling by foreigners, but subsequent investigation has shown that the difficulty has arisen afresh. I hope it will be considered from the standpoint of the necessity on scientific grounds of delimiting not only the Moray Firth but other portions of the North Sea which are known to be spawning beds or frequented by immature fish.
Reference has been made to the need for the re-equipment of our drifter fleet. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman treated the thing in such a general fashion. He said there was no doubt that there was a new type of drifter being evolved which was applicable to the needs of the moment. We should like to see the Government giving active assistance in developing the type.
The right hon. Gentleman has been examining some of them, and we should have expected him to give us his opinion, and to give us some assistance in getting the type to replace our rapidly deteriorating drifter fleet. This is the problem of the moment. We have a drifter fleet which, according to the 1930 report of the Fishery Board, overages 20½ years in age. Of the existing drifters, 42 per cent. may be said to be on their last sea legs. They are far too expensive for the ordinary fisherman to replace at the present cost. We have had one or two excellent types of new drifters built with crude oil engines which have been found very efficient within the limits within which they have worked. A steel drifter to-day costs £6,000, a figure which is far beyond the means of most fishermen. Wooden drifters can be obtained at considerably less cost, with increased comfort to those on board, increased stowage accommodation and excellent seaworthy qualities. I should like to make a special plea to the right hon. Gentleman that, having considered the advantage of this new type, and having seen the stage that we have reached, he would lend his whole encouragement to the building of these new drifters, which could be produced in our small seaports. It would be an advantage to boat builders all over Scotland. I have a note of the actual cost in fuel and the return to the fishermen from one of the new wooden drifters at Anstruther. The saving in fuel works out at a very high figure. Taking the current price of coal and oil at Fraserburgh, a steel drifter would have had a fuel bill of £27 13s. a week, whereas one of these wooden drifters, with crude oil engines of 160 h.p., would cost only £8 10s. a week. The owners of this type of drifter, by reason of the decreased cost and other advantages, would secure twice the return that they would have got from a steam drifter. It is very important to make it clear to the industry that we are able to construct a new type of drifter which will substantially meet requirements at a greatly decreased cost.
We have had within recent years a great deal of trouble in connection with the invasion of the Firth of Forth by trawlers and also in connection with seine net fishing. It is the general
belief of the line fishermen that there has been a very considerable destruction of immature fish by such trawling. I urge upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider very carefully, in connection with the question of trawling, the provision of additional assistance. I am aware that the recommendations of the Mackenzie Committee have been carried out to a limited extent with regard to cruisers, and that in the Estimate we are to have an additional hydroplane provided. But there is further need for policing our seas in order to secure sufficient protection against trawlers. In connection with seine net fishing, there is a very distinct and well-founded belief on the part of the line fishermen that substantial damage is being done to the immature fish. I think it is well worth considering, in dealing with those areas where seine netting has been permitted, whether after careful observation with regard to what takes place, steps should be taken with a view to restricting or closing those areas, where undoubtedly there may be evidence to show that fish have been depleted. I also note that there have been a number of convictions on the part of seine net fishermen, which shows that the practice must be more carefully watched on account of the injury which is being done to other parts of the Firth.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance upon the operation of the clauses of the Washington Convention relating to the hours of employment of workers in the cured herring trade? I do not propose to go into this question, but as this matter comes within the cognisance of the Fishery Board, I should like to ask whether he is prepared to give any indication that the provisions of the Convention will be carefully considered in their relation to the employment of herring gutters and workers, so that during the intensive curing season, when they have to cure fish which otherwise would deteriorate, provision should be made to enable the work to be carried out during continuous periods in the interests of the workers as well as in the interests of all engaged in the trade. I hope that he will be able to indicate that something will be done, and that following this Debate we shall be in a position in Scotland to feel that the efforts which we have
made, and which my right hon. Friend will desire to see crowned with success, will, in the days immediately following, show some direct progress. I am sure that the public and all the fishermen of Scotland expect something from a Debate of this character, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not disappoint them.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): I feel sure that the Committee will agree with me that the Debate initiated by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), after the production of the Vote by my right hon. Friend, has been of a high standard throughout. I feel, therefore, that the result of the Debate will have some benefit and some good effect as far as the fishing industry in Scotland is concerned. I have been asked many questions, and if I do not reply to every one, it will not be because I do not wish to do so, but because it is really impossible to reply in a single speech, and in the time at my disposal, to all questions put by Members who have taken part in the Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have plenty of time!"] I have another Vote yet. I will try to deal with as many of the important points as possible, but, before doing so, I would remind the Committee that from two parts of the Committee special reference has been made to the fact that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promised £20,000 to £30,000. Promise and performance are entirely different things. He promised to provide £20,000 or £30,000 but I want to emphasise the fact that we not only provided that sum of money but—and I say this in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who wanted to know what we had been doing, and in fact challenged us with having done nothing—we provided approximately £500,000. Since we came into office harbours have been dredged which could not provide accommodation for boats in Scotland, and it is now possible for boats to get into harbour that could not do so before. There are annual debt charges which have been wiped out as far as the fishing communities are concerned, and that means that they can get ahead with their industry in a far better way than
was possible prior to the Labour Government coming into office.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going on with the work on the East Coast of Ross-shire.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am dealing now with the general question, and meeting the charge that we had nothing to show for our work. I have now the admission of the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty that we have a good deal to show for the work in which we have been engaged during the last year. Therefore, I think it will be admitted that the statement that we have nothing to show was incorrect. I would remind the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty that he could have taken a great interest in the fishing question from 1914 to 1922, as he was a Member, I think, of every Government from 1914 to 1922.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I did take a great interest in the question.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There were few results to show for the interest of the right hon. and learned Member as compared with the results which we can show for our work. Both the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asked what scientific investigations were being carried out by the Board and what was the nature of the work upon which they were engaged at the present time? The investigations of the Board continue to be directed mainly to the haddock and the herring, the two most important commercial species in Scottish waters. The investigations concerning the haddock cover the whole life cycle of the fish, and in carrying through those investigations we have been collecting samples at various stages, from the egg onwards, and it is now possible to determine the comparative productivity of the various types or kinds of haddock, the rate of growth, and when each year's group will become of importance to the commercial fisheries. A few years ago there was considerable alarm because of the decline in the haddock fisheries. As a result of investigations it was possible to determine fairly accurately when the fishing beds would again be filled with the fish necessary for the fishermen who
gather the harvest of the sea. It was possible to show that in the year 1926, in particular areas, there would be an adequate supply of haddock, and the prophecy turned out to be accurate. Investigations have been carried out on the same lines as previous years, and data have been collected, which will materially help the fishing industry in carrying on their very arduous calling.

Another question asked was, What are we doing in connection with investigations for the preservation of fish? That matter is not dealt with by the Fishery Board, but by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, whose work is being carried on at the present time at the station at Aberdeen where they are collecting valuable information which will be of very material benefit to the fishing industry. They are concentrating at the moment mainly upon the way and the manner in which they can convey fish in the respective vessels with a view to being able to get fish to market in the best marketable condition possible. Those experiments and that work will be carried on during the coming year with a view to collecting valuable information in order to help materially in a direction in which hon. Members in all sections of the Committee desire to see improvements, namely, to get fish to market in the best possible condition. A question was asked as to whether we have been carrying through any work in connection with exploration. That, again, comes under the English Vote. [Interruption.] As far as the provision of a new vessel is concerned, the vessel is now ready to carry through its work, and we hope that it will be successful in finding new fishing grounds and will be able to report to the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in England with a view to enabling our fishing population to know whether there are new fishing grounds to which they can go.

Sir F. THOMSON: The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries stated last year that a plan of exploration in respect of the herring was going to be pursued in 1930 by the Scottish Fishery Board along with the Admiralty and the British Federation of Trawler Owners. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give the Committee any information with regard to that proposal?

Mr. WESTWOOD: At the moment I cannot give any information, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may rest assured that I will have the necessary inquiry made in order that the information may be supplied to him. The investigations in connection with the salmon fisheries comprise an inquiry into the causes and the possibility of preventing disease. Inquiries by marking and scale reading into the life history and habits of the salmon and sea trout are being carried through at the present time, and we await the result of those inquiries in the hope that they will also materially help the salmon fishing as far as Scotland is concerned. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) raised the question of dredging, and I will point out as briefly as possible what we have been doing in connection with dredging since last year. As I have already pointed out there was great neglect of the harbours during the War because of the War, and one of the results was that our harbours fell into disrepair, and, in many instances, required a vast amount of dredging. The programme for the past year was framed with a view to meeting the most urgent requirements of the different harbours, so that improvements could be effected at as many harbours as possible in the course of the year. In all 61,215 cubic yards of material were removed from the harbours of Eyemouth, Port Seton, Buckhaven, Pittemweem, Anstruther, Crail, Fraserburgh, Macduff, Buckie, Tarbert (Loch Fyne) and Girvan. In so far as the harbour authorities were unable to bear the cost of the necessary dredging the work was undertaken by the Board free of charge to the authority and the amount of such work undertaken during the year is valued at approximately £7,054
The question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Hamilton) has been engaging my personal attention during the past week. I have twice met deputations so far as the problem affects the Shetland fishermen, but, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, this is a fishing problem applicable to the whole of Scotland. We have to realise that while the fishermen did fairly well as far as East Anglian fishing was concerned last year, the curers have been unable to dispose of the fieh which they cured last year,
and, consequently, there is a glut on the market at the present time. For many years there has been an earnest, honest and sincere endeavour on the part of many individuals in the fishing industry to organise the industry and attempt to get not only markets for their fish but to avoid glutting the market, as repeatedly happens unless there is organisation.
While there is no antagonism on the part of the Board or on the part of my right hon. Friend and myself, as far as the Shetland people are concerned, there is a belief that it is in the best interests of the whole fishing trade of Scotland that there should be effective organisation for the purpose, first, of keeping out of the market immature fish. Here I have to face the fact that as regards the Shetland curing position, we have to deal with a lighter cured herring and a smaller type of herring, and, apparently, it is claimed that it would not be in real competition with the Yarmouth herring. While we are not antagonistic to the Shetland people in any shape or form, we do want the Shetland curers to get into the Herring Association. They are not now members of the association. I met their representatives twice last week, and we have suggested to them that the best place to state their case is inside the organisation itself, where the pros and cons for a fifty-fifty basis next year can be considered. The hon. Member himself pointed out that it is impossible to do anything this year. The negotiations can take place inside the association, inside the industry, where the matter can be thrashed out and a decision can be come to which will be not merely in the best interests of Shetland but in the interests of the herring fishing throughout Scotland.
I do not want to touch on the very thorny problem which was dealt with so ably by the Lord Advocate. The problem of the Moray Firth has been fully discussed this evening, but I would remind the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that if there had been a little more consideration in the year 1906–7, when he was a member of a Liberal Administration, there might have been less need to-day for very serious consideration of the problem. I do not
know that it is a crime to "give due consideration" to this matter. The right hon. Member for Darwen counted up the times that the Scottish Office had "given due consideration" to this question. I would prefer to be charged with having given due consideration 2,000 times to the different subjects that come up than do something rashly which might land us into the trouble in which we find ourselves to-day, not as the result of the action of the Labour Government, but as the result of the action of the Foreign Secretary of a Liberal Administration in the year 1906. I have dealt, I will not say exhaustively, with the points that have been raised, and I have tried to answer the main questions that have been put. Seeing that we have another Vote to get, I hope that it will be possible now, without cutting out anyone from this Debate, to pass the Vote and let us get on to the Agricultural Vote.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I will not detain the Committee long, because there is an understanding that another Vote is to be taken immediately this Vote has been dealt with. I have, however, sufficient-excuse for intervening in a Scottish Debate. In the first place, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), an English Member, has intervened and, secondly, the constituency which I have the honour to represent has been mentioned so often in the Debate, and the men from that particular area have been described as all sorts of people, that I think I have a right to put in a few words in their defence. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) described the men of Grimsby and Hull as pirates. I repudiate that statement absolutely, and I shall certainly have something to say to my hon. and learned Friend in another place later this evening. It is sufficient for me to say—because if I went into the question I might be ruled out of order—that I repudiate his statement entirely. I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the fact that he has followed the excellent example set by his predecessor of doing something to assist the fishermen of Scotland. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) on the excellent points which he put forward, which have been so ably answered by the Under-Secretary of State. He elicited
from the Under-Secretary much valuable information that will be useful to all fishermen.
My main object in addressing the Committee is to deal with the question of the Moray Firth. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not refer to it at greater length. He said that the Lord Advocate had given the legal position, but there is something far beyond the legal position, and the Committee ought to know the real facts. We always hear a lot about the Moray Firth question just before a General Election. The raising of the question to-day is a sure sign that we are on the eve of a General Election. If hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for years past they will find that certain hon. Members for Scottish constituencies always raise this question just before a General Election comes along. It is merely propaganda, and nothing else.
When the Act was brought into being which excluded British fishermen from the Moray Firth, it was nothing but a bit of political jobbery. It may be said that it was a Conservative Government that did it, but that makes no difference to me. That is what it was—a bit of political jobbery. It was done to placate a certain section. It is impossible in international law to take a sheet of water 70 miles across and 40 miles deep and to declare it territorial water. You may have 50 Scottish judges sitting on the question, let alone 13, but you cannot alter international law in the matter. When the enactment was put into force the British fishermen resented it very much, and when foreign governments established the right for their nationals to fish there some of our people changed their vessels over to foreign flags, took a foreign skipper aboard and went into the Moray Firth to fish. It is not a question of preferential treatment between the Britisher and the foreigner. The question at issue is international law, and on behalf of the great trawling industry I tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that in dealing with this matter we shall look to him to defend the rights of English and Scottish trawler men throughout the whole of the fishing waters. If, simply to placate the Scottish fishermen, he agrees to anything that will mean that we shall not be able to preserve our right to fish up to within
three miles of the coast of Iceland, Norway or Russia, we shall regard it as a gross injustice to the trawlers. Over 85 per cent. of the white fish that is landed in this country is landed from the trawlers.
I hope that the Government are not going to destroy or to injure very severely an important industry simply to placate a few people who feel that they have a grievance as regards this particular water. In dealing with the question of the infringement of territorial water limits, I am not going to defend either my own people or the fishermen from any other port. They must respect the law of the country in regard to this matter. Hon. Members will never hear me either in this House or outside it defending the man who deliberately poaches, but when it comes to a question of fishing in a stretch of water 70 miles wide and 40 miles deep, I maintain that you cannot talk about that as being territorial water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Forty miles wide!"] Call it 40 miles wide if you like, but it is the same thing in regard to this question.
The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire referred to the question of dyed kippers. As these little things have a habit of getting into the newspapers, because they are a little sensational, the country may be led to believe that the dyed kippers which are sent out are unfit for human consumption. The inventor of the process was a Scotsman and he started operations in Scotland. My hon. and learned Friend tried to tell the Committee that it was only South of the Tweed where this operation was carried on. Let me reassure the people that the dye that is used is a vegetable dye, and is harmless. It does not injure in any way the digestion of the people who eat the kippers. I do not suggest that the quality of that kind of kipper is anything to compare with the kipper that has been smoked in oak dust, but I do say that you can get the very best quality kippers from Grimsby. If you want the dyed kippers to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, you will have to go to Scotland.
I would urge upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the necessity of consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries before he makes any move in regard to this matter. I am satisfied that he knows sufficient about the question of international territorial waters
to realise that once you start trying to gain an advantage for one side you are going to give a good deal away on the other. I can assure my right hon. Friend that if any attempt is to be made on his part to do anything in regard to a particular area, it will have to be done in such a way that our interests are not prejudiced so far as concerns other countries which are connected with the Fisheries Convention. We ask—and it is all that we ask—that we shall maintain the three-mile limit which has been the international law for many years, and which, I hope, will remain so for many years to come.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £397,313, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Land Improvement, Agricultural Education and Research, Loans to Co-operative Societies, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a Grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain Grants in Aid."—[Note: £175,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. W. ADAMSON: When I introduced the Estimates last year, I took the opportunity to say a few words upon the agricultural industry and its importance and stated that, in my view, the policy to be aimed at is one 7.0. p.m. which would make the best use of the natural advantages of the country and which would do most to supply the enormous market for agricultural products which lies at our doors. The magnitude of this market is shown by the fact that we import annually £230,000,000 worth of food, exclusive of cereals. Of the total value of meat consumed annually in this country 48 per cent. is imported; the corresponding proportion of poultry and eggs is 54 per cent., of dairy produce 52 per cent., of potatoes and vegetables 27 per cent., and of raw fruit 42 per cent. All of these can be grown in one or other area in this country. Notwithstanding this vast demand in our home market, we, along with the rest of the world, are
sharing in an agricultural depression due to widespread causes, for which it is difficult to find any speedy and effective remedy. It is no great consolation to know that we are not alone in our difficulties. It is some consolation to believe that the standard of technical efficiency of most of our farming is high and that for that reason probably we are suffering less than many of our competitors. I have had occasion to refer in the House to the various agricultural surveys which have been made by the Department of Agriculture from time to time. These surveys are made for the purpose of ascertaining by careful inquiries the economic conditions in difierent parts of the country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these figures refer to Scotland only or to the whole country. If they refer to the whole country, I could not permit a general discussion on agriculture throughout the British Isles on the Scottish Estimates.

Mr. ADAMSON: I simply mentioned the figures to show the market open to Scotland as well as to England, and I have now passed on to matters which are exclusively Scottish. As I was saying, when you put the point—you were quite within your right—the first result of these inquiries covering the year 1929 is of the utmost interest. The results for 1929–30 should also prove of interest and value to the agricultural community. I regard the work of collecting and compiling these figures, with the assistance of the agricultural colleges and the farmers as of the first importance. In due time we shall be able to have a trustworthy picture showing the financial conditions of agriculture in Scotland. It is on the lines of promoting self-help that the Department of Agriculture is proceeding and considerable advances in that direction have already been made.
I also referred last year to the experiments inaugurated under the regulations of the Agricultural Produce Grading and Marking Act and, in particular, to the grading of pigs. The experimental scheme for the voluntary grading and marking of Scottish killed pigs was begun in Aberdeen and certain other centres in the north-eastern counties in October,
1929. The scheme was taken up with enthusiasm by a number of traders and has proved continuously successful. During the first four months of the present year the weekly average number of sides graded and marked was about 2,500, while the number of butchers and dealers who were submitting the pigs for grading was about 190. From the beginning of the scheme up to the end of April, the total weight of pigs graded and marked was about 19,000 tons. It is not possible to say precisely what the effect of the scheme has been on the prices realised for the meat in London, but, according to evidence submitted to a committee which investigated the matter and reported on the subject last year, Smithfield has absorbed larger quantities of Scottish pigs at relatively higher prices than in previous years. Whether the marking and grading of pigs can be extended to other centres such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, depends, in the first place, largely on the provision of the necessary quantity, which so far it has not been possible to obtain for that purpose; but I have no doubt that the success which has already attended the system will enable us to find the funds for an extension of grading and marking, which will be advantageous both to the producer and to the consumer. Among other commodities to which the National Mark scheme applies, are potatoes, eggs and tomatoes. In all cases the schemes are proving beneficial, and it is to be hoped that they will be increasingly adopted so that our home products may gain and hold a permanent position in our home markets.
With the aid of the Empire Marketing Board, other measures have been taken to bring the merits of our Scottish agricultural produce to the knowledge of consumers in the various parts of the country. Exhibits of various kinds have been held at the British Industries Fair, the Empire Marketing Board shops in Glasgow and Birmingham, the Scottish Grocers' Exhibition, the International Grocers' Exhibition, the Imperial Fruit Show, and the Glasgow Civic Empire Week. These efforts towards the grading and marking of produce are steps towards the organised marketing for which the Government's Marketing Bill now under consideration makes provision. In considering the position of Scotland in
relation to the policy of the Bill, I thought it right to take into account the existence of such bodies as the Scottish Milk Agency, and the Scottish Wool Growers Limited, which have been formed for the purpose of dealing on a large scale with specific commodities and which contemplated the furtherance of the principle of co-operative action. Accordingly, in its application to Scotland, the Bill provides that the governing body of an agricultural society may be constituted as a board for the purpose of the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must not discuss prospective legislation. I have to consider what the effect of his speech would have on other Members, and my ruling would be that it would entitle hon. Members opposite, if they so desired, to discuss the suggested legislation, and that could not be allowed on these Estimates,

Mr. ADAMSON: I had no intention of discussing the merits or otherwise of that legislation. I was simply pointing out the relation the Bill would have to our grading and marking scheme and what could be done under the Empire Marketing Board.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I permitted the right hon. Gentleman to make comments on prospective legislation, I could not prevent other Members of the Committee disputing and if necessary repudiating his opinion. Therefore, I cannot allow prospective legislation to be raised.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of the Committee. I do not think that anything I have said up to now has transgressed the Rules. I merely mentioned this Bill, and I did not proceed to discuss its merits or otherwise. I simply proceeded——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow that to pass. The right hon. Gentleman is making specific and definite reference to a Bill which is before Parliament. Whatever may be his intention, the effect of that upon the Committee would be that I could not refuse to allow other Members to comment on the matter. I cannot allow that and must rule the matter out of Order.

Mr. ADAMSON: I bow to your Ruling. All I wanted to say in regard to legislation
was that I intended to mention the question of live stock and the efforts that were being taken by the Government to improve it. But, as you have already said I cannot mention legislation, I bow to your Ruling and will proceed to deal with other matters.
I now come to the question of education and research, two most important matters to agriculture. This work is proceeding with increased energy and interest on the part of the farmers, and it is to their interest and its result that we must attribute in some degree the ability of the Scottish farmer to withstand the present depression. A few weeks ago the Hannah Dairy Research Institute was formally opened. Recognition of its value has been shown by the contributions from agricultural societies and individual farmers. The Macaulay Institute of Soil Research, due to the generosity of Mr. T. B. Macaulay, of Montreal, is now in being in Aberdeen, and it is expected that it will be in full operation by the end of the year. The fine new buildings of the West of Scotland Agricultural College at Auchencruive are nearly completed and the dairy and poultry section of the college have now been installed there. We have now in Scotland a system of agricultural education and a group of research institutes of which we have reason to be proud. Some indication of the value which is placed upon research may be gathered from the fact that since the War £340,000 has been contributed to research in Scotland by private individuals and firms, and £22,500 has been produced by farmers themselves, assisted by one or two seed merchants for the formation of a plant breeding society which, by the way, has already produced some very excellent results.
I now turn to the question of agricultural credits, upon which hon. Members from time to time have asked many questions. Hon. Members like myself are aware of the difficulty which has surrounded this matter. Agricultural credits became an accomplished fact in England and Wales shortly after the Bill passed through this House, but we in Scotland have experienced some difficulty which the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) was unable to overcome when he was Secretary of State and which I myself, notwithstanding many anxious efforts,
have not been able to overcome. I am glad to say, however, that after long and terious negotiations four of the Scottish banks, the Royal Bank, the Commercial Bank, the National Bank, and the British Linen Bank, have agreed to find sufficient capital—namely, £100,000—and to set up an Agricultural Security Company in Scotland under the terms of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1029. The banks are considering now how to finance an issue of debentures from which the greater part of their working capital will be derived, and I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the public spirit and good will of these banks which have accepted the responsibility of setting up this Security Company as a matter of public policy and national welfare, and not as a commercial development which they would in normal circumstances have adopted. The memorandum and articles of association which have been framed, generally on the lines of the corresponding instruments adopted by the English Mortgage Corporation, are now before the Treasury, whose approval has to be obtained before the financial support from public funds contemplated by the Act can be forthcoming. Naturally, it will take some little time to get over the preliminary difficulties, but I am glad to be able to announce that things have progressed so favourably and that at last we are within measurable distance of being able to set up agricultural credits in Scotland as well as in England.
The next point in connection with these Estimates is the question of land drainage. I had hoped that the Land Drainage Act which came into operation last year would by this time have enabled me to report Progress both as regards the drainage of land and as regards the provision of employment. The operations of the Act, however, are, hedged round by so many safeguards that the most minute precautions must be taken before a scheme can be launched. The most important on which the Department is engaged at present is that of the Kelvin, where 2,000 acres of land are liable to flooding. The scheme is complicated by the fact that the Kelvin flows through the City of Glasgow, and several industrial undertakings make use of the water. The Department's engineers have prepared a scheme for excavating and deepening the bed of the river, and the
work of estimating the benefit which will be conferred upon the lands liable to flooding by the carrying out of this drainage scheme, for which a corresponding charge will be laid upon the owners, has been completed. The Kelvin scheme is possibly the most difficult and complicated of all the schemes which the Department is likely to deal with under the Act, and the experience gained in dealing with this big undertaking should make it possible to deal with other schemes more rapidly than has been the case so far as the Kelvin is concerned.
The Department have now under examination by their engineers schemes in connection with the Annan, the Nith in Dumfriesshire, the Lossie in Morayshire. Not less urgent in Scotland is the need for pressing forward the work of field drainage. The improvement of all classes of arable land by tile drainage and of the hill pastures by the cutting of hill drains is a work which will benefit very large sections of our agricultural community, and I am sure that even those who are not agriculturists can appreciate the value which good drainage will confer upon the industry. I was glad to be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to double the amount of the grant made by the State towards this purpose in Scotland, and the amount so increased is being made available again this year. It is a sum of £30,000, and as the State's contribution is not more than one-third of the cost it ensures the spending of nearly £100,000 and will give employment to a considerable number of unemployed persons in this type of work. In connection with the grant of last year we spent roughly about £100,000 and have been able to insure the improvement of about 9,000 acres of arable land and about 127,000 acres of pasture land.
The next point is the question of land settlement. I think I can claim that the Government have done everything that was possible to utilise the resources at their disposal, to improve the existing administrative machinery and to provide new machinery and funds for widening the scope of this service and extending its benefit to applicants who otherwise would be disqualified through lack of the capital necessary to undertake successfully the cultivation of smallholdings. I would remind the Committee that
during last year we have spent a considerable time in thrashing out the details of two Bills in which land settlement figures somewhat prominently and, having in view of your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will simply mention them—the Land (Utilisation) Bill and the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, a purely Scottish Bill. In regard to executive activities, which we have full liberty to discuss this afternoon, I need not remind hon. Members that these activities are restricted by the fact that the grant-in-aid to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund is limited by Statute to a sum of £175,000 annually.
For some years prior to the coming into office of the present Government the full grant-in-aid was not used, but on assuming office in June, 1929, I instructed the Department that the progress of land settlement should be accelerated to the maximum possible within the limits of the fund available. This has been done. Last year I made provision for the maximum grant-in-aid of £175,000, and I ask for a similar provision this year. During the five years of the previous administration the annual average sum provided was a little over £110,000. Since June, 1929, I have authorised the acquisition of 17 estates, embracing 17,740 acres suitable for sub-division into 270 smallholdings and 26 enlargements of holdings. This is in addition to schemes of settlement on the estates of private individuals, which have also been in progress during the two years named. During the preceding five years the number of estates acquired was 31, embracing 26,000 acres and providing for 240 new holdings and 34 enlargements of holdings. The number settled during the two years of my office was 240 in 1929 and 280 in 1930. In the two preceding years the numbers were 156 and 208 respectively. In the five years prior to June, 1929, commitments entered into amounted to £487,000. I have authorised, in the period of less than two years from June, 1929, commitments amounting to £604,053.
These figures will show that, so far as land settlement is concerned, we have been doing our best to speed up the programme so as to be able to settle as many people as possible on the land. If we are fortunate enough with the legislation
now in progress, we believe we shall be able to increase that number. Personally, I take the view that one of the biggest things we can do is to make a better use of the land at our disposal. I claim that in the time at our disposal we have been doing that, and I can assure the Committee that so long as we remain in office, we shall take every step possible in order to accelerate schemes of land settlement.

Mr. SCOTT: I think the Committee will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the interesting survey that he has made. He has added some information to what is to be found in the report of the Department of Agriculture which was put into our hands by the Vote Office yesterday. By far the most important item in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that in which he made an announcement regarding agricultural credit. As he rightly said, he has been pressed for the last two years to get on with that matter, and I am sure that it is a great satisfaction to agriculture in Scotland to know that at last something is to be done. One could gather what the reasons were for the delay. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the four banks which had now seen their way to come forward in support of the proposal were considering the question of the issue of debentures to the public. I can imagine that it was on the question of the value of those debentures that all the banks in Scotland were holding their hands. No doubt the debentures are to be issued as trustee securities, and the banks probably had some doubt as to whether the securities would maintain their value over a period of years. One can only hope that the venture which is now to be launched will be a great success.
There is a crying need for credit in Scotland for many purposes. There is the need of those farmers who have bought their farms, who are at present paying very high rates of interest to private lenders and now wish to get the benefit of some cheaper credit by means of the Security Corporation. There is a still larger class of farmers, in fact the farmers in general, who have a particularly lean time between the sowing of the seed in the spring, the payment of Whitsuntide rent and the date of the reaping of the crops. It is necessary for
the farmer to have capital to tide him over that period. Can the Secretary of State given any information as to the date when loans are likely to be available to the farmers? That is the point on which they will want information. I hope that the arrangements are not going to take as long as the preliminary negotiations, and that within the next month or two at least we may see some progress made with regard to the actual giving of loans to those who need them.
One has to turn to the report of the Department of Agriculture in order to get a full resumé of the work done by the Department. Anyone who wants to know whether farming can be made to pay ought to read the report, with particular reference, for example, to cooperation and marketing, and with regard to agricultural education and research and the improvement of livestock. Those who have doubts as to whether rural life can be made attractive should read about the Women's Rural Institutes, which in recent years have made amazing progress, and in which I have a sort of paternal interest, because I was one of three men who were permitted to be members of the first committee that set this great movement on a national basis in Scotland. Before long we were summarily dismissed and for many years the movement has been entirely in the hands of the women themselves and is doing splendid work. I think it is fair that we should congratulate the Department of Agriculture upon the activity which it has shown in the numerous sections of its work. It has been active and aggressive, though I shall have to criticise it on one or two points before I finish.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman emphasise the matter of education and research, on which, as the Estimate shows, a sum of about £150,000 is to be spent this year, an increase of £15,000 on last year's total. The question at once presents itself, how are all the results of the research to be made known to the farmers, the men and women who are actually carrying on the industry? The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt devise means for doing that. In the report itself there is a mine of information which one would wish to be in the hands of those who can best use it. One is sorry to see a decline
in the allotment movement. That is one of the dark pages of the report of the Department. I see that over a period of 10 years there has been a decline of something like 1,800 acres. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having set up a strong Committee to further the allotment movement, which I am certain will be of great benefit.
I would emphasise two points in connection with the buildings on the smallholdings in Scotland, particularly in the Highland districts. It is a matter for congratulation that the reproach of what were known as "the black houses" has been largely removed, and is in course of being still further removed in the West Highlands. The right hon. Gentleman did well to emphasise the assistance being given to crofters to repair and rebuild their own houses. It is the most economic method to follow. No one can put the supply of building materials to better use than the owners of the cottages, who know what they want, and can supply their own labour for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman, referred to land drainage, and one regrets with him that there has been so much delay in putting it into operation. Apparently, progress has now to be made in dealing with the flooding of the River Kelvin. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned other three rivers, the Annan, the Nith, and the Lossie. By the Lossie, does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Spey? Year after year there has been such heavy flooding, and there the need for the Act being put into operation is probably the greatest in that part of Scotland. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to a part of my constituency in Kincardineshire where a number of farms have been completely submerged and the area is now a huge loch, because there has been no drainage in that area since the War. It is an area to which he should direct his attention in order to retrieve the laud for arable purposes.
The next matter to which I would refer is the survey. I was interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to publish the results of the survey which he has been making of the agricultural land in Scotland. I would like to know whether he means that he has completed what was begun by his predecessor—a
minute survey of the agricultural land in each county in Scotland. If I remember rightly, Kincardineshire was the first county to be reported on, but I understood that the report which was presented to the Department had been kept more or less as a confidential document. I never could understand why the reports which the Department is obtaining should not be made public. The survey which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is making is a survey of how the acreage in each county is being utilised, and whether in some cases it is not being utilised at all; what acreage requires drainage, how the land can best be used for agriculture or afforestation, and also general statistics with regard to rural conditions, the amount of stock on the various holdings, the size of the holdings and so on. If he could add to this publication a series of maps explanatory of the reports they would be of great service.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget a matter which I brought under his notice by means of a question recently, namely, the continuation of the register of smallholdings. In spite of all the protestations made by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors that the Department is yearly adding so many hundreds of smallholdings to the list in Scotland, the total number of holdings in the country was reported by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor within the last two or three years to have been no greater than it was in 1911. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a result of the two years' efforts of his Government, of which he is naturally proud, the total number of holdings to-day is any larger than it was in 1912. I have the gravest doubt as to that because it was frankly admitted by his predecessor that there was a constant leakage of holdings going out of the Acts, owing to the fact that the code of Smallholdings Acts was not watertight. It was to that matter that some of us directed attention in Committee on the consideration of the recent Measure.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of land settlement. I should like to know who is the responsible officer in the Department of Agriculture now dealing with the question of land settlement. In 1912 there was a Commissioner for Landholdings, but that office was done away with and I should like to know
not only who is the responsible officer now, but also what are the qualifications of the responsible officer. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give that information which will be of interest to the country. Regarding the land settlement policy of the Department the report claims that under the Land Settlement Act of 1919, 95 separate estates were acquired totalling 330,498 acres. I assume that these 95 estates were acquired by one Government or another by purchase. In contradistinction to that statement the report shows that under the Small Landholders Acts, 1886 to 1911, 320,565 acres were acquired, no doubt mostly on privately-owned estates, and I assume that this land was acquired by scheduling, that is to say that Department did not purchase the land, but merely obtained the use of it, the private owner receiving rent for it.
The proposition which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is that he ought not to waste in this way the comparatively small amount which is annually given to his Department by way of grant and which, according to himself, he has considerable difficulty in getting from the Exchequer—or at any rate he has difficulty in getting it augmented. I suggest that he ought not to waste it in purchasing land from the landowners, but that he ought to adopt the method which is ready to his hand of obtaining power to get the use of the land. I see that during 1930 the Department acquired nine new estates and an additional portion of another estate, that is to say, land suitable for 179 new holdings and 26 enlargements. Apparently under the Smallholdings Acts they were only able to settle 11 new holdings, and the obvious inference to be drawn from these facts is that the Department is proceeding almost entirely by the method of purchasing land instead of merely scheduling it, in order to obtain the use of the land from the owner. That is a very expensive method and is depriving the right hon. Gentleman of a large fund which he could use for equipping holdings and providing them with roads, fences and water supply. I trust that he will reconsider that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to a demand of which he must
be well aware and which is referred to in the report. That is the demand of the ex-service men for holdings. The report shows that 9,418 ex-service men applied for holdings since 1918, and it is noteworthy that 4,785, or practically half of them, withdrew their applications. No doubt that means that many of them were heartsick of waiting. Some of them have waited for 10 or 12 years in the hope of getting holdings. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that at the present moment there are 2,238 outstanding applications by ex-service men for new holdings leaving out of account enlargements? I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman this question—is it want of capital on the part of these men which is preventing him from providing them with holdings? If so, can he not see his way to make some relaxation with regard to these loans. Surely the nation's debt to these men ought to be paid now after this long delay. Already this afternoon one matter of a long delay has been laid at the door of the right hon. Gentleman and I, with great respect, would lay this matter with regard to the ex-service men's holdings, at his door also, as a matter in which there has been too much delay.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: What was the other one?

Mr. SCOTT: The Moray Firth trawling question.

Mr. ADAMSON: That is not to be laid at my door, but at the door of the hon. Member's party and another party.

Mr. SCOTT: I think, respectfully, that the matter to which I am now referring is to be laid at the door of the right hon. Gentleman and it is a very serious matter for these ex-service men. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to consider too much in this connection what other Governments have done. If they have been remiss the blame is theirs. But the right hon. Gentleman's opportunity for making a reputation may be that he can supply these men with the holdings of which they have been deprived for so long and I urge that consideration upon him with great deference. The report is silent with regard to the tenure of these holdings which the right hon. Gentleman tells us he is settling. I contrast with that, the report
of another Department which comes before the right hon. Gentleman, namely the Scottish Land Court. They have not been silent with regard to tenure. I expected that the Department of Agriculture would have made some submission to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to the very serious charge which the Scottish Land Court has made with regard to the actions and policy of the Department. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Scottish Land Court have called public attention to a very serious new departure of policy. They say in the report for 1928:
A new development in the practice followed by the Board in dealing with the method under which we are asked to fix the rents of properties of which they are proprietors, has rendered it necessary for us to add a new table to our reports. This new practice signalises a departure from the normal conception of the landholder which has been embodied in "the statutes as being a tenant who has acquired a pecuniary interest in the permanent improvements on the holding on which he is not rented and for which he is entitled to claim compensation on his outgoing.
In the following year they called attention to the same matter and I do not intend to allow it to go by default. I propose to provide the right hon. Gentleman with one or two references which I trust will satisfy him that the change of policy is not warranted, that it is contrary to the intention of the Acts and that it is also contrary to specific Sections. The point is that, instead of continuing the policy of giving loans to holders in order to settle them in holdings—the holders retaining the loan during a period of, say, 50 years, and becoming entitled to a pecuniary interest in the buildings—the Department of Agriculture, on the instructions I understand of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office, made a departure from that settled policy, and it is now the custom from day to day in the Department to let holdings as equipped holdings, giving the holders no opportunity of becoming practically the owners of the buildings during their lifetime or the lifetime of their families. The result is that they are rated at a higher rate by the public authorities and they are also liable for repairs and restoration of buildings.
8.0 p.m.
In all these different ways the Department is establishing holders upon a basis which is most prejudicial to the holders, and the only scrap of excuse offered to
the House of Commons for it, was offered by the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who said that the Department wished to have the option to settle on a quit rent basis if it desired. May I press this point on the right hon. Gentleman—that under the 1911 Act the landholder is specifically defined as a man who owns the greater part of the improvements upon his holding. When the right hon. Gentleman uses the money given to his Department by the Treasury he should remember that he is getting that money under two Acts. He is getting it under the Acts of 1911 and of 1919 and Section 6 of the Act of 1911 states definitely that the money is to be used for the purpose of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings, while in Section 9 of the Act of 1919 the constitution of the landholders' holdings is mentioned, and it is stated that they must be recorded in the landholders' holdings book. Then Part IV of the Act provided for the Department borrowing money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the extent of £2,750,000 but it was to be borrowed for a certain purpose, that is for the adaptation of land for landholders under the Act of 1911. Are the Public Works Loan Commissioners aware that part of the money which is being lent by them to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman is being used for purposes other than those specifically set forth in the Acts?
I would like to know whether any of the funds that have been earmarked for landholders only by these two Acts have been used for the purpose of equipped rents. If they have, I think they have been misused. The right hon. Gentleman has already cited an instance this evening in which he gave definite instructions to the Department under his charge, and I trust that in this matter of equipped rents he will use his own discretion—and nobody is more able to do it, than he—and instruct the Department that they shall abide by the settled policy of the Smallholdings Acts and depart from the recent policy of equipped rents. The matter will no doubt be taken up by the Public Accounts Committee, but he will regret as much as I that the matter should be allowed to go on so long that serious complications may eventually arise. At least it will not be for want of fair warning, because, as he knows,
I raised this matter this time last year in the House and in Committee upstairs and I intend to press it until I see that the Department is not allowed to usurp the rights of this House in this way. Parliament has set forth in the various Acts, in no uncertain way, the policy which is to be followed, and it is for this House to see that the Acts are duly observed.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I think the Committee will feel that a discussion upon agriculture and the administration of the Department at this time may serve a very useful purpose. Scotland is going to celebrate the centenary show of the great Highland and Agricultural Society this year, and is going to welcome within her shores representatives of the farming industry from the outer Empire. These are matters of great interest to all who are concerned with agriculture in Scotland. The Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides deals with the administrative side, and in so far as funds are available to them, they endeavour, quite properly, to assist agriculture in a variety of directions. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who now holds the office of Secretary of State for Scotland on the success which has attended the very long-drawn-out negotiations with the Scottish banks. I was in the position of endeavouring to carry out an agreement with the Scottish banks for loans to agriculture some time ago. It was a fact, I think, that in Scotland our banks have given more readily, and under easier circumstances than has been the case in England, assistance to the farming industry, but it was felt in this House, and I was one of those who felt it, that there was a gap, and I am glad to think that that gap now may be filled. It is clear that there are still some final hurdles to be got over, and the right hon. Gentleman is not yet in the position of being able to tell us quite definitely when these loans may come into operation.
Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the surveys which have been made in Scotland. These have been going on for some considerable time, and I am glad to think that they are being continued and that we may ultimately get
from them a good deal of helpful information. I would say, in regard to any criticisms as to secrecy, that, as I understand it, a great part of the information which has been given to the officials of the Department in carrying out these surveys has been confidential information, and that where anything is to be published it must be published with a due regard to those circumstances. All the same, I think there can be collation, and I hope that from time to time we shall have the advantage of seeing the result of these surveys.
In regard to that problem, the question of drainage, both arterial and field drainage, also arises. It is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to double the amount which has been available for that purpose, and here again I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been able to get that added money, but I want to ask him one or two questions about it. I observe that in the Estimates which we are considering, a very large additional sum is asked for as travelling expenses and for other matters with regard to the staff. I presume that those increases are due to greater activity of the officials and perhaps an added staff, due partly to the drainage problem and partly to the increased efforts of the Department for land settlement. In these hard times, however, we want to be quite sure that we are going to get real value for an added expenditure on the staff at the present time. I am very desirous of being quite fair to the Department, because I have the greatest admiration for a great part of the work which they do, but I think this House ought to understand exactly for what particular reasons these increases, very considerable in themselves, are asked for.
I want now to say a word about the problem of research in agriculture and the great strides which we have made in this problem in Scotland, and to express, not only to the right hon. Gentleman and the Department, but, if I may, to men like Mr. Hannah and Mr. T. B. Macaulay, for their generosity and for the fact that their generosity has stimulated and increased the interest of agriculturists of all types and classes in Scotland in the problem of scientific research. Everyone who has been privileged, as I have been, to attend and to see something of the work of Dr. Orr,
in Aberdeen, and the work which is being done in Edinburgh, ought now to realise that in the West of Scotland there is established in the atmosphere of the country districts, outside the great cities of our country, a further research station. It is, I think, a matter of great congratulation. But I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in carrying out this research work and in encouraging the universities and the agricultural colleges, he will not lose sight of the necessity, in this scientific work, of maintaining the practical side. I have an apprehension that many people are going through these agricultural colleges, attending these classes, and gaining their diplomas for the purpose, not of going back into active work on the soil in agriculture, but rather tending towards attempting to pass for posts as instructors both in this country and outside.
When one looks around the country at the present time and desires to get a good, sound, practical dairymaid or someone for ordinary work upon the farms of our country, it is an extraordinarily difficult thing. I speak from practical experience of the shortage of really efficient dairymaids, of under-shepherds, and of qualified cattlemen. If these institutions are to serve their full and proper purpose, their energies must be turned towards encouraging, training, and improving the knowledge of the people who are actually working upon the land. That brings me to say that I am glad to think that already steps are being taken to form classes, not of great length, at centres in either the colleges or in our cities, but bringing these classes into touch with the working farmers and the young men and young women who are serving their apprenticeship in this industry. If that is being done, I think we can get real value out of it.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say anything more to us about the progress which the Macaulay Soil Research Institute has made. I realise that it is early days yet, but when I was in the outer islands last autumn, I saw the beginnings of the enterprise outside Stornoway, and I heard from time to time of something which is going on in Aberdeen. I think we should be interested to know whether it is too early yet to come to conclusions or whether anything of an encouraging nature can be made known. I
should like also to ask incidentally whether any further progress has been made on the subject of bracken disease. Those of us who hope that some solution of a scientific nature might be found for dealing with a problem which affects a great part of our grazing areas in the Highlands are, I think, a little disappointed that our experiments in this direction have not been more fruitful, but I should like to know if any further advance has been made in that matter.
I congratulate the Department upon a great deal of the work which they have been doing, but so far as agriculture is concerned, the real problem which faces most of us who want to make both ends meet upon the farms is not only to know the most highly scientific methods, not only to have available to us the means of obtaining loans for agricultural purposes, but above all to find a market at a remunerative price for that which we produce. The right hon. Gentleman quoted certain figures, sections of which may apply to Scotland, as to the immense amount of foodstuffs of all qualities and kinds which come into this country and compete with our producers. I was glad to note that he evidently was disturbed at the enormous figures and that he desired to see something done to deal with that problem, but that would lead mo into fields which are probably outside the De-bate this evening. While I congratulate the Department on the progress they have made, I fear that there are still wider and more clamant problems in agriculture on which we cannot touch to-night.

Major COLVILLE: I wish to draw attention to one particular branch of agriculture in Scotland, that is, the growing of small fruit and vegetables. On the 19th November last there was a Debate in the House in which the question of the fruit-growing industry was discussed. Since that date deputations have been received by the Scottish Members to discuss the peculiar position of Scotland as regards this industry. These deputations made plain to Members of all parties that the position in that industry was very serious. On the 19th May a question was put by the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) on the subject of the fruit industry, and he was informed that
the Government were well aware of the serious position, but the observation was made in the answer that, according to information in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, there had been no considerable decrease in the employment of fruit harvesters in the largest fruit-growing area of Scotland last year as compared with the year before. He added that the distress in the industry was partly due to a very large crop of raspberries which had produced a slump in prices, and which came largely from a prolific cane of the "Lloyd George" variety.
The position as we know it in Scotland and as we hear of it from representative bodies is rather different from what that answer would indicate. We have it on very good authority that the employment last year in harvesting fruit was very much reduced from the previous year. It is possible that large numbers of fruit harvesters were taken on, but that they were not retained in employment for any length of time. I have here a statement made by the Scottish Council for Women's Trades. Many women are engaged on fruit harvesting, and this statement makes it plain that large numbers of these fruit harvesters, who normally find employment in this work, were paid off after a short length of time and found themselves unemployed. The statement said:
Last season thousands of these workers, drawn from all over Scotland, and largely from our big cities and from mining districts, had to be dismissed after only three weeks' employment, leaving an enormous quantity of valuable fruit ungathered. This had to go to waste on the bushes.
I would be going outside the scope of the Debate if I outlined the measures which would be necessary to prevent the importation of the foreign pulp which hits this industry, but I think that I am right to point out the serious position in which this industry is placed at the present time. We would not be entitled to pass this Vote if we thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were not fully aware of it, and did not intend to put up to the proper quarter the grave position of the industry.
I want to say a word about the importance of this industry from the point
of view of giving employment. The area under cultivation last year for small fruit and vegetables in Scotland was 17,000 acres. When that figure is compared with the total arable area in Scotland, which is roughly 3,000,000 acres, it seems to be a small proportion; it is about 1–200ths; but from the point of view of the employment which it gives, its importance is very considerable. The fruit industry employs approximately 4,000 regular workers and 14,000 casual workers in Scotland, a total of 19,000 workers. If that is contrasted with the number of acres covered, it will be found that one worker per acre is given employment in the industry. In the larger branch of agriculture on account of its nature, the proportion is less; there is only one worker for every 31 acres. I therefore earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this industry on account of the valuable possibilities it has of giving employment, and to represent to the proper quarter what necessary steps can be taken to safeguard it from unfair competition.
Another branch of the fruit industry which has made strides in recent years, but which is now also feeling the same depression on account of imports, is the tomato or glass-house industry. In the Clyde Valley in Lanarkshire where I live, many glass-houses have been built. Here one regular worker is employed for every one-quarter of an acre. If that industry can be encouraged, we can get much more employment, and I know a way in which it can be encouraged. Yet last year the imports of foreign tomatoes were higher than they had ever been before. We shall shortly, I understand, have the opportunity of meeting a deputation representing the fruit-growing industry. They are to meet separately Members of all parties who represent Scottish constituencies. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully what I have said, and to give due regard to the representations put forward by this deputation. I will, in conclusion, quote the words of the President of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture in a recent statement in which he says:
The position of the raspberry grower is now a desperate one. Many of the small people have already been ruined, and if the conditions of last year obtain for another crop there will be universal bankruptcy in the industry.
These are strong and grave words, and the gentleman who used them was speaking from close personal knowledge of the industry, and was entitled to take a grave view of the situation.
I have another point to make in regard to a different question, namely, the position of allotments. In the report of the Department of Agriculture, on page 84, we find a very serious decrease in the number of allotments in Scotland. In 1919 the total was 41,000 covering an area of 2,600 acres. In 1930 the number had gone down to 13,500 covering an area of only 840 acres. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that a strong committee has been formed for the purpose of encouraging allotments in Scotland. We wish that committee all success in its work, and I trust that it will, among other duties, consider carefully the proposal to tax land values, and will represent in the appropriate quarter that this tax will have a restrictive effect on allotment holding in Scotland.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I wish to put a specific point to the Secretary of State in regard to the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The point comes under the heading of "Public Works and Miscellaneous Services in the Congested Districts." Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman appointed a Departmental Committee to examine into the condition of piers and small harbours around the West Coast of Scotland. We have not yet had the findings of that committee, and do not know what work may be carried out as a result. May I draw attention to one or two specific cases where work could be carried out with great advantage to the agricultural community in Skye? The first case is that of the pier of Kyleakin. About 1895 the railway company on the adjoining mainland came to this House to ask for a grant-in-aid in order to construct a pier on the opposite side in the Isle of Skye. They got the grant, and they erected a pier and maintained it for some time. As a consequence of having that pier they acquired from the then proprietors the ferrying rights between the mainland and the island of Skye, and I have no doubt those rights were transferred to them on the assumption that they were to maintain the pier for all time. Unfortunately, some years ago they allowed the pier to fall into disrepair,
so much so that it became quite unusable, and in fact has practically vanished. The result is that that particular district has been grievously affected through no boats being able to call to deliver or accept goods.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does this matter come under the administration of the Department? Unless the Department are administratively responsible, it is not in order to raise it on the Estimates.

Sir M. MACDONALD: As I see it the Estimates refer to public works and miscellaneous services in congested districts
under Section 4 (1) (a), (e), (f) (g) and (h) of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, e.g., piers.
It was on that particular item of piers that I based my remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All that I want is to be assured that this grievance is one for which the Department are responsible.

Sir M. MACDONALD: The Department have at any rate appointed a departmental committee to examine into the question, and, in view of that, I was putting to the right hon. Gentleman the facts as I know them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary will tell us what it is proposed to do in this particular case. My second point, i s that a number of other piers have been erected on the west coast under the Congested Districts Board. These piers were handed over to small local committees. Owing to an alteration in the circumstances, and particularly to these small committees being unable to function on account of lack of funds, their interests should now conceivably be taken over by a larger body. Under a recent Act of Parliament the Skye District Committee, as such, was abolished and its powers were merged in the county council of Inverness. The county council is naturally not anxious to repair any of these congested district piers, or to maintain them in future until they are put in a proper state of repair. It is impossible to find funds locally to do this, and therefore it devolves upon somebody to restore these piers to their normal condition. I understand the departmental committee has been examining into that question, and I should be very glad to know the result of the committee's findings and the intention of the Secretary of
State. That nothing much is likely to happen is evident from the fact that the grant under this particular head is not increased but decreased. That makes it appear as if nothing is to be done in the coming year arising out of the report of that committee.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The subject before the Committee is of very great importance to Scotland. I was very much struck by the remark of the Secretary of State that "in due time" we may be able to get a trustworthy picture of the financial position of agriculture in Scotland. Agriculturists have no doubt about the financial position of agriculture. There is no necessity to await the results of any survey. The necessity is for action to be taken by the Government, administratively and otherwise, to put the agricultural industry on its feet. There is no need to await the "due time." We know what that means in the case of a Labour Government—it usually means waiting a year. The position is that agriculture is in a very bad state financially, and the sooner the Government do something for it the better. I have a special question to ask regarding the marking and grading of beef. At the present time different graders are appointed for different counties. They grade the meat in its different classes—1, 2 and 3. One county may produce a much better quality meat than others. From each of those counties will come meat that is graded as in Class 1, but the meat from the one county will be distinctly better than that from the other counties, and it is distinctly unfair to the county which produces the best meat that when all this meat gets to Smithfield its contribution is represented as of no higher quality than the meat from the other counties. Are there any means of checking the grading? We want a mark which is a national mark and not a county mark. I am very much in favour of the grading of meat, but I think the man who produces the finest quality should get a higher standard than the man who produces meat which, though marked as of first quality, is not quite so good.
We have been dealing with small points to-night, but I would like to draw the attention of the country to the fact that since 1929, when our party went out of office, the cost of the Department of
Agriculture has risen by no less than £93,221. That is a very big item, and it is extraordinary that two years ago, when the cost was £100,000 less, the Department was run more efficiently, and agriculture was in a much better position in Scotland. It does not say much for a Government which professes to do so much in the direction of economy to find that they are spending £100,000 more than was spent for the same purpose two years ago and that the unfortunate agriculturists of Scotland are nevertheless in a worse position.
It is rather an extraordinary fact that when the Estimate is examined we find that no less than £14,732 more is required for the cost of the Civil Service staff at the head office. What is more extraordinary is that 70 more people are now employed in the Department of Agriculture than were employed two years ago, and they are costing the country £14,732. The next question to which I wish to refer is that of agricultural smallholdings and the amount dealing with land drainage. I notice that the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund received £36,000 more than it received in 1929 and land drainage gets £38,000 more. We find from the Estimates that no less than £12,000 more is required for arterial drainage schemes this year as compared with last year. We have been told that the Kelvin Valley scheme and the schemes for arterial drainage are going on very well, but, if that is so, why is the money voted for this purpose lying idle? On page 153 of the Estimates we find that in 1930 £10,000 was voted to provide for grants for the purpose of assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons. Apparently, it was thought that this money would be required in 1930, and an Estimate was made for £10,000, but it does not appear to have been used. With regard to the £12,000 required for arterial drainage, I want to know if it is really going to be used. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be good enough to give us some information on that point.
I will now deal with the question of the settlement of smallholders on the land. The Government often take credit for the success of their schemes for the settlement of people on the land. This may be a good policy or it may not, and
I am as anxious as any hon. Member of this House to see that the agricultural industry is put on its feet. We want to be quite certain about the cost of the settlement of smallholders. If the cost is going to be very great it will be a serious matter, but if it is going to be done very cheaply it may be all right. I do not think that the Department of Agriculture can be depended upon to do this kind of work efficiently. I would like to refer to the report which was issued yesterday. I think it is rather extraordinary that we have to discuss this question so soon after the report has been issued. It is necessary in regard to large schemes of this sort that we should know what they are going to cost. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland is quite incapable of arriving at a proper Estimate. On page 21 of the report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, under the heading of "Abandonment of Schemes," it says:
Mention was made in the Department's last report that the Department had made Orders confirming schemes for the constitution of new holdings and assigning enlargements of existing holdings on the four farms at Bellfield, Balblair, Balnagore and Ardmore, all in Roes-shire.
What happened was that they abandoned the setting up of all these schemes except one, because the cost was going to be too great. In the case of Ardmore the Department's estimate for compensation was £200, and the court awarded £511. In the case of Balblair the court awarded £l,800 compensation as compared with the Department's estimate of £500. In the case of the farm at Balnagore the Department estimated that nothing was due to the owner-occupier by way of compensation. In this case the report says:
The claim amounted to over £5,034, being a net estimated annual loss of £397 6s. 10d. capitalised, and the court, by a majority, awarded £1,542.
In the case of Bellfield the Department thought that £200 would be adequate to compensate the tenant, but the court awarded £755. It is clear that in regard to smallholdings the Department cannot even work out correctly the amount of compensation. I would like to know what agricultural tenants think of a Department which is offering them about one-third of the compensation to which they are legally entitled. Page 25 of the
report deals with the progress of settled holders. We have been told that the failures among smallholders amount to about 5 per cent. for England and Scotland, but I do not know what the figure is for Scotland alone. I should not be surprised if the figure was much higher in Scotland. The report is supposed to give us information about land settlers in Scotland. On page 25 it says:
The Department continue to receive reports as to the success attending the efforts of individual holders.
That is an extraordinary statement, and they go on to enumerate the various holders who have made a success. I could also enumerate individual holders who have failed. Why are they not in this list? We are not even given the percentage. I think that the House and the country are entitled to know, if we are going in for this large settlement of smallholders, whether the present smallholders are making it a success, and I want to put three direct questions to the Secretary of State. The first is: What is the percentage of failures of smallholders in Scotland alone? The second is: How many smallholders are there who are in arrear with their rent at the present time; and the third is: How many smallholders are there who have received loans from the Department and who are in arrear with the payment of interest on those loans? I should be grateful if we could have answers to these questions, because I think they will give us a much clearer idea of how these smallholdings are succeeding.
This large increase in the Estimates is very serious. If the money must be spent, there are various ways in which it could be better spent than by allocating £14,000 for office staffs, surveying staffs, and so on. The Minister himself referred to the question of field drainage. I agree with him that that is enormously important, and I think that some of the extra money that is being spent by the Department would be much better spent from the point of view of agriculture if it were spent in encouraging field drainage. I gather from the report that the applications were largely in excess of the funds available. I appeal to the Minister to see whether the money cannot be spent more efficiently than is indicated in this
Estimate, and whether less cannot be spent for staffs and civil servants and some of the other items enumerated.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only intervene because the Derby is one of the races during the year that I like best to attend——

Mr. MAXTON: What about the autumn meeting at Ayr?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is out of Session. In order to make sure of being in my place to-day, so that I might try to look after the interests of Scotland, I forewent going to the Derby, and, unless I make this contribution to the discussions that are taking place, no one will realise the sacrifice that I have made for the sake of my constituents. There are many others who have spoken in this Chamber only for that reason, and I am doing it for the first time in my life and for a definite purpose, namely, to show that I did give up a very great pleasure in order to be in my place and to do anything that I could do to contribute to the better government and prosperity of Scotland.
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the ingenious, shrewd, and on the whole skilful way in which he presented, I will not say a very bad, but a bad case. The right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to put before this Committee, and through this Committee before the country, a condition of affairs that does not, although he may believe it does, accurately represent the facts. We know that agriculture has never before been in such a depressed condition. We know that, even in the most prosperous agricultural areas in Scotland, the conditions to-day are giving rise to the very gravest anxiety, and, therefore, while it shows a very optimistic streak in the right hon. Gentleman's nature, it is not, perhaps, consistent with absolute fact to present such a view to the House as he has presented to-day.
I should like to congratulate him on a very charming ceremony which was performed a fortnight ago, when he opened the newly built and equipped Hannah Research Institute in Ayrshire. He did it with the same skill and charm
and ingenuity with which he presented his case to-day. I would only make one comment, and that is that, when he received, as he graciously did, a golden key for the opening ceremony, I was hoping that the thought passed through his mind that possibly a golden lock might have been presented to his predecessor, who, after all, laid the foundation by his negotiation, by his tact, and by his constant effort, for producing the result which the light hon. Gentleman saw a fortnight ago. There are one or two points to which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention. He has a keen sense for injustice, and at the present time he might reserve that keen sense for an importation of rennet into this country which is being used for making cheese. He himself referred to marking. Rennet is coming into Scotland now from the Continent, which, when it is used for the manufacture of cheese, results within a fortnight in the most filthy-smelling cheese that——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that to deal with that matter would involve legislation, and, if not, it appears that it would come within the province of the Ministry of Health.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Although I agree that the perfect solution would be total prohibition, I want to ensure that that rennet is marked, so that our unfortunate farming population may know where it comes from when they buy it in the shops, and that it is likely to produce cheese which they will not be able to sell. I have sent samples of it to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I am astonished that he is looking so well to-day after it. I kept it in my office for two days, and then I realised that the right hon. Gentleman might be a better recipient, and so I passed it on to him. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's various contributions towards the destruction of pests, research work, the betterment of agricultural stock, and so on, I should like to point out that, while we have, in connection with the West of Scotland Agricultural College, this very fine Hannah Institute, that was only made possible by the generosity and patriotism of one man, and the point arises that on the other side of Scotland you have another college which is, I will not say starved, but certainly
is without the facilities that it should have for conducting its work. It seems to me to be quite wrong that one college, because it has the backing of a man of wealth and patriotism like Mr. Hannah, should be in the happy position of being able to carry on its work more efficiently and to a larger and wider extent than a college on somewhat similar lines in the East of Scotland which had not those facilities. I do not know whether the Government can do anything in this matter. I do not want them to spend more money by increasing their contributions to the Edinburgh College, but I think there should be some levelling of the help received by people who are working in the best way that they can to produce the best possible results for agricultural research in Scotland.
I am sure that everyone in the Committee realises that all the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman are worth very little, if anything, unless he does something to bring agriculture on to a proper paying basis in the country. How can you do that? There are two or three ways. A scheme was promoted two years ago for the purpose of ensuring that farmers in the West of Scotland had adequate power at their disposal for mills or machinery, or whatever it might be, and also for adequate lighting in the farms, threshing barns and so on. That was called the Galloway water power scheme. For that purpose some of us withdrew our opposition. For two years nothing has been done and the unfortunate farmer is still waiting for those extra facilities which were going to make life more amenable and render his efforts to make a living easier. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain why nothing has resulted from that Measure.
One of my constituents has raised the question of the proposals that are now apparently going to be adopted with regard to the valuation of sheep stock. Hitherto it has been the custom for a buyer and a seller to appoint a valuator each and for those two valuators to appoint an assessor. If the valuators appointed by the buyer and the seller could not agree, possibly the sheriff would appoint a valuator. Sheep stock is one of the most difficult stocks to make a living out of, because sheep vary so much in what they get out of the same
land. You may put one lot of sheep on a piece of land, and they will do very well. You may put another lot on the same land the following year, and they will do very badly. It is a most difficult problem how to feed and raise sheep. If this proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is carried out, it will mean that valuators will be appointed by his Department, and you will have people coming from outside, who know nothing about local conditions and know nothing about the sheep and the quality of the land on which they live, giving decisions which no one but a local man could successfully give. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to continue the existing position. It has worked very successfully, and I do not suppose anyone wants to see it altered.

Mr. MATHERS: I want to ask what the Department of Agriculture intends to do to meet the situation of those applicants for allotments and land for poultry farms, etc., who would have been adequately met under the terms of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill. A number of applications have come from my own constituency, which, while not agricultural, contains a very large number of people who have only recently removed from the soil. All our Scottish cities are made up of people who, within a generation or two at the most, have been connected with the land. I have been rather interested to hear hon. Members opposite asking the representatives of the Government what they are prepared to do in certain eventualities. My inquiry is one that might almost be directed to them as to what they were thinking of when they allowed their representatives in another place mutilate the Land (Utilisation) Bill 9.0 p.m. so seriously. Even at present we have more scope in Scotland for dealing with settlement on the land than is the case in England, and I am anxious to know whether what remains of the mutilated wreck of that Bill is going to be allowed to pass into law.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss prospective legislation. That has already been ruled out of order.

Mr. MATHERS: My inquiry is simply what the Department has it in mind to
do by administration to meet the position of those applicants and what advice they would give now to those who wish to make applications of that kind, and what prospect there is of those applications being met.

Mr. MILLAR: The question the hon. Member has raised is one of great importance. It is raised very sharply in this report that is in our hands. I am glad it has made it clear that there are already so many applicants for smallholding's who are well equipped and suitable for the purpose, so that we may first absorb those who are undoubtedly qualified. The section of the report that deals with smallholdings indicates very clearly the continuing land hunger that persists. The demand for settlement is persistent and is increasing. The report of 1930 shows that there were 737 applications, as compared with 489 the year before and, as one goes back, one sees the accumulation of applications which the Department have had to face and have yet to deal with. I have had practical experience of the settlement of smallholders in my own Division, where I follow with interest the work that is being carried on by those engaged in the Thirdpart land settlement. There is no question whatever that the success of small land holdings depends very largely upon the individual and his qualifications. He must also have decent land upon which to work. Where, as at Thirdpart, smallholders have been placed on waterlogged land, they have found its cultivation a very difficult undertaking. There have also been difficulties with regard to water supply which have caused very considerable complications. The position of those smallholders ought to be considered by the Department from a more sympathetic point of view. I have had a good many dealings in connection with those matters, and I have come to the conclusion, from my experience of those with whom I have come in contact, that in many cases they are finding it a very difficult and a very hard fight, and they deserve every sympathy and support. I am glad that reference is made in the report to the success of smallholdings. I do not agree with my hon. Friend behind me that it is not a fair and proper thing to bring before the notice of the public generally the fact
that smallholdings can be and are a very great success in many cases, and I am glad that emphasis is put upon the fact that the success of many smallholders is due to their wives being well-equipped for the work which is being carried on. I believe that the necessity for coping with the demand for land settlement is greater than ever. I urge the Government to avail themselves of the experience of those who really are thoroughly well equipped, and who in such large numbers seek settlement on the land, before they go elsewhere. They should start by giving those who have had experience of agriculture the first opportunity.
I wish to refer to the services which the Department can render to the farming community in relation to its many activities. I believe that information as to the best methods of farming, and, what is more important, proof as to how it can actually be done, combined with research work, is one of the best forms of State aid which can be given to any farming community. We are passing through critical times, and many of the farmers are faced with a very hard struggle, but there has been, at any rate, some improvement in certain directions. I am glad to think that the serious situation which arose last year, owing to the over-production of potatoes and the consequent pronounced glut and fall in prices, has been overcome, and that the situation to-day is a happier one. The same can be said with regard to oats. The price of oats to-day stands very much higher. At a time like this it is very important not to adopt quack remedies, but to try to secure a real advantage to the farming community. I am very much impressed with the reference in the report to the efforts which have been made to investigate farm economics. I believe that this is one of the most hopeful lines to take. The necessity of carefully analysing results on particular farms and ascertaining what is the most paying form of farming, is very important. Now that we are living in changing times, with an enormously increased world production of cereals owing to mechanised farming, it is essential that our farmers should endeavour to adjust themselves, as far as possible, to the conditions under which we are living to-day.
I should like to congratulate the Department upon issuing the Scottish Journal of Agriculture, which contains from time to time some exceedingly thoughtful and helpful articles dealing with various aspects of fanning. I refer particularly to an article in the Journal of Agriculture issued in January, 1931, by Dr. Orr, of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on the subject of stock farming. The facts set forth in that article ought to be studied carefully by all who are engaged in farming to-day. The main question raised is the importance of developing our stock farming and mixed farming under conditions which will enable farmers to make the most of their land and opportunities. The basis of the argument rests largely upon the fact that the wholesale cost of the food consumed in this country at the present moment runs to about £15 per head. If you analyse the cost of the various classes of foodstuffs, taking £1 as the unit, you find that meat, bacon, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, etc., amount to 12s. 6d in value; cereals—wheat, flour, oatmeal, barley, etc., 2s.; fruit, 1s. 9d.; sugar, 1s. 9d.; potatoes and vegetables, 1s. 3d.; and fish, 9d. The importance of these facts is that cereals account for only one-tenth part of the nation's expenditure on food, whereas animal products account for more than half of the total expenditure.
If we could develop our animal husbandry to-day in many areas where it would be possible to do so, we could enormously increase production for a market which lies at our doors. In animal products we produce rather less than 50 per cent. If these products were produced at home, the increased production would amount to over 6s. in the £ or nearly one-third of our total expenditure on food. I emphasise the necessity of trying to capture the market which is at our doors in meat, and dairy and poultry produce, which have the advantage of being produced under fresh and excellent conditions in this country. Our home farms produce animal products to the value of £200,000,000 and in addition we import more than £200,000,000 worth. If we were able under a wise system of mixed farming—[An HON. MEMBER: "Introduce tariffs!"]—My hon. Friend suggests tariffs. I thought that we should hear about that matter. He knows perfectly
well that the farmers themselves have reason to suspect promises which have been held out to them both with regard to tariffs and guaranteed prices. They had the experience of a guaranteed price under the Corn Production Act, and they are not very anxious to have the system repeated. Here they have an opportunity of securing a very considerable advantage by adapting themselves to the conditions of the time. The development of intensive stock farming would be accompanied by an increase of labour. You will find in the article referred to, and in two other articles printed along with it, a strong argument in support of the view that you can have increased employment under a system of mixed farming where you may reduce the actual acreage of cereals and vary your crop, with the addition of temporary pasture. That is worth consideration by the farmers today.
Reference has been made to the question of agricultural drainage, and while we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having increased the amount of money available, those of us who have had experience of the necessity of drainage know what a drop in the bucket this sum is as compared with what is required in order to put our land into proper condition. There is an immense amount of land in Scotland which is not only awaiting drainage but requiring to be limed, and if something could be done to improve transport conditions, and to get a large quantity of lime upon the land, as in the old days when there were lime kilns all over Scotland, we should be in a position greatly to improve our pastures. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the development of land drainage schemes by a larger grant, which would mean very substantial advantage to the country.
With regard to the certificates, mentioned in the report, for the importation of potatoes, I should like to know whether the Government have fully considered the risk of disease which still continues through the importation of potatoes from other countries. A case could well be made out for complete prohibition owing to the substantial risk of danger to stock and home crops through the importation of foreign potatoes. In connection with the agricultural credits scheme, could the right hon. Gentleman
answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) as to when the farming community in Scotland will be in a position to avail itself of the scheme? The conditions have been under consideration for a long time, and, if the scheme may be regarded as sound, I have no doubt that the Treasury will give their consent. With the pressure that right hon. Gentlemen can bring to bear, they ought to be in a position to give their consent at a very early date. We are faced with a very urgent matter, and the delay that has already taken place makes it the more urgent that we should have a statement as to when a scheme will be available.
In considering the question of agriculture, we must keep in view the fact that the farm workers of Scotland form the backbone of the industry and that everything should be done to encourage them in their work. I do not believe that the readjustment of fanning methods so as to develop intensive mixed farming would involve loss of employment. The evidence is all the other way. Wherever you get intensive farming you get fruit growing, market gardening and other forms of industry, and the employment is very great. The employment in the poultry and dairy farms comes next and is also great. We should keep in view the desirability of securing continuous employment for the farm workers of Scotland who, as a class, are highly skilled. We cannot afford to let them go to other countries overseas, to which so many have been emigrating recently. The conditions in regard to rural housing, holidays and wages are all matters that deserve most anxious consideration on the part of the Department of Agriculture. Unless we have a contented peasantry, contented agricultural workers, working under fair and free conditions, we shall never get full advantage out of our agricultural system in Scotland. I am glad to see that the agricultural education which is being afforded to that particular class has resulted in a large number of awards of scholarships to the sons and daughters of agricultural workers, who have proved themselves fit to undertake positions of responsibility after the training that they have received.
I hope the Department will keep in view the fact that it is not only their duty to assist in the administration of the various matters dealt with in the report, but that they have a direct responsibility to the agriculturists of Scotland in assisting them in every possible way to secure better conditions for the farm workers and better methods and better markets for agriculture. One of the best things that could be done is to secure to the fullest possible extent the home market by better organisation.

Mr. J. BROWN: I have imposed upon myself the self-denying ordinance of speaking for only five minutes, but I cannot refrain in those five minutes from offering my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department generally, and to offer my sincere condolences to the hon. and gallant Member of Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). He spoke so feelingly that he nearly drew tears to our eyes. He deserted the classic slopes. I know as much about the classic slopes as the hon. and gallant Member seems to know about farming. He spoke of three things. Why he mentioned the Derby I do not know. He said that he was trying to help that most deserving class of people in Scotland, the farmers, but I do not think that he mentioned farmers once in the whole of his speech. I have a great many sheep farmers in my constituency, and I am glad to know that the town of Ayr now possesses some sheep farmers, about whom the hon. and gallant Member is very anxious. He spoke about some horrible cheese. I have had a sample of that cheese. The remedy lies in the hands of the fanners. I am given to understand, from information received from the Department, that it was not the rennet that was at fault but, the starter. I was told, and I believe it to be true, that the rennet and the starter can be got at home and that there is no need to take any of the foreign stuff. The hon. and gallant Member represents burghs along the line of coast where I do not think there is more successful farming in the whole of Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There are other farmers in Scotland in addition to those who live along the coast.

Mr. BROWN: A patriotic Member ought to begin at home, but the hon
and gallant Member extends his philanthropic ideas to other parts of Scotland. There are other people who are capable of looking after other parts of the country. He mentioned the Loch Doon scheme. The Government have nothing to do with that scheme. It was a private Bill which was passed in the teeth of fierce opposition. It was against all my ideas that the Doon should be utilised for such a purpose. I did not know that Ayrshire was going to benefit very much from that scheme. It is the Galloway counties that are to benefit if the scheme ever comes into operation.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The reason why I introduced that point was that I was hoping to receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that a grant is contemplated from the Unemployment Grants Committee to the promoters of that scheme, and I want to know exactly if Government money, taxpayers' money, is to be contributed to a private enterprise which we as Ayrshire Members, do not support.

Mr. BROWN: I accept that, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will admit that he did not make it very clear. I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Department on having at last done something. I remember year after year we had the same story told us, the same questions put, and the same answers given, and nothing was different at all. I congratulate the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on at length having made a move to provide smallholdings for our people. I do not think people living in the towns really understand the land hunger which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) mentioned. Everybody wants land if it can be got, and I am glad to think that in my own constituency, near my own door and in the very place about which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs talked, where the Research Department opened two or three weeks ago, we now have smallholdings and men have started work on them. I think we should praise the Government for having done something which other Governments have never attempted to do in their long occupancy of the Front Bench. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman and to say how much I—who represent a large agricultural constituency where we have sheep farming which has done very
well—am pleased to think we are now doing something for which the Labour Government deserve to be in office for the next two years, in which time I believe we shall see a still larger number of smallholdings given to the people who are so desirous of trying to do something for the land and for the good of the country.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Provision for smallholdings has been made, but not nearly so much as we should wish to see. It is pathetic to think how many thousands of men are still wanting them, and how many have fallen away from the queue, as it were. I have always been a believer in smallholdings, for the reason that a man will work harder for himself than he will for a wage. It has been a great disaster that, smallholdings have died down so much in many parts. I remember a farmer telling me that in his father's younger days there were large farms surrounded by smallholdings. The smallholders were really the farm hands of the large farms. They worked for them and then borrowed the ploughs, horses and cattle and worked on their own land. They thus got into a habit of industry and hard work, which the mere wage-earner finds it very difficult to acquire. He said it was not so much the amount of money they made, but that they were a thrifty people with the money they did not spend, and so they really did very well. A man working on a bit of land can grow practically all his own food, and any that is over and above that is surplus.
I know cases in my own constituency where men in a comparatively small way grow practically all they require for their own wants, with the assistance of a little fishing, and they are much more comfortably off than the fairly highly-paid town operators. They are not out to make money in the commercial sense. They are not commercial farmers, and it is a mistake to look at smallholdings from the point of view of industrial and commercial enterprise. They are there to make a living and a little surplus. I was astonished on the Clydeside to find so many glass houses. It reminded me of the miner from Fife who arrived at Waverley Station, Edinburgh, and fell asleep. They put him back in the carriage, and when he got back his friend's
asked him what sort of town Edinburgh was. He replied that it was a very peculiar town, because it appeared to be all roofed in. Similarly Clydeside seems to be almost entirely roofed in with glass, for the smallholdings are prospering exceedingly, growing tomatoes. They are of much better quality than the imported tomato, which has neither flavour nor the texture of the Scottish homegrown tomato. There is unlimited room for them.
If you go in for large-scale farming and the small farmer tries to imitate that by growing corn crops and rearing stock, he will do no good but if he contents himself with small, intensive cultivation under glass, and grows fruit and so on, he will make a living. What is needed above everything else is to see that there is proper transport to encourage the local producer, to do what we can to stop these raids upon motor transport, and to turn a deaf ear to pleas for other forms of antiquated and less convenient transport. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should at last carry out the undertaking for the fulfilment of which we have been waiting during the years he has been in office, and provide the steamers with suitable piers, so that smallholders can get their stock sent to market. Unless something of that kind is done, the smallholders will be very seriously handicapped and unable to ship their produce, and it will be idle for them to try to make a living. In days gone by, before the landholders were rendered almost insolvent by taxation, they used to build the piers. They cannot do it now, because they have not got the money, and this beneficent Government, which has abstracted almost the whole of their fortunes, must take their place and provide piers to enable smallholders to thrive.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) may rest assured that no one has more sympathy with the question of the better equipment of piers in the north-west of Scotland and in the islands than those who are now responsible for the administration of Scotland. If we are to develop the western isles and the north-west coast of Scotland,
we can only do so when we have a proper transport system, with piers properly repaired, and a larger number of piers than we have at the present time. None of his predecessors in office has paid more attention to this particular problem than the present Secretary of State, who has repeatedly visited these parts of Scotland to study the problem for himself and also to consider the question as to the priority of work so far as particular piers are concerned. In listening to the arguments which have been put by hon. Members opposite, it seemed to me that the points put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire cancel the arguments of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith).
The only real criticism that has been levelled during the discussion has been that of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen, who complained about the increased cost of land settlement in Scotland. If there is one question more than another which requires careful consideration and wise expenditure, and more expenditure, with the problem of unemployment facing us at the moment, it is the development of our own land and an extension of smallholdings. It is a remarkable fact that despite the crisis which faces the agricultural industry at the present time, we have had during all the years that the smallholdings scheme has been m operation, only 5½ per cent. of failures.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Is it 5½ per cent. in Scotland and only 5 per cent. in England?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am only dealing with Scotland. That is quite a big enough problem for my right hon. Friend and myself. If we had the same number of failures in the industry generally we should consider ourselves very fortunate. It is a remarkable fact that whilst we have to face this critical situation in agriculture generally, the smallholdings' movement has come out of the crisis much better than the general agricultural community.

Mr. SMITH: Can the Under-Secretary answer my other questions with regard to arrears, and so on?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Before I finish my reply I will answer every pertinent question put by the hon. Member.

Mr. SMITH: The Under-Secretary says "pertinent question." Is it not a pertinent question to ask whether there are any in arrears with their rent or who have not paid the instalment on their loan?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must allow the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to proceed. He assumes that his questions are not going to be answered. He must give the Under-Secretary an opportunity to reply.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I will deal with that particular question before I conclude my speech. The hon. Member is asking me to accelerate my speech much more rapidly than his own Government accelerated land settlement. The hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) asked what was being done in regard to the River Spey. The engineers at the request of the Department have made a survey of the lower reaches of the Spey, but they are unable to suggest any scheme of work which can be carried out at a reasonable cost and with the expectation of a permanent result of safeguarding against flooding. While they report that a low wall or embankment on the low lying ground might provide some protection against minor flooding, their recommendation that this work may be undertaken was made with the qualification that it would not provide effective protection in severe flooding; and in view of the condition of the buildings it might be advisable as a more effective way of dealing with the problem to consider the alternative of the evacuation and reinstatement on higher ground. That is a problem which is receiving our consideration at the present moment. The hon. Member also asked for the officer who is responsible for land settlement. The responsible officer is the permanent secretary to the Department, but one of the assistant secretaries of the Department is responsible, under the permanent secretary, for the administration of smallholdings; and both these officers are responsible to the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament.

Mr. SCOTT: I rather wanted to know who, under the Secretary of State, is charged with the duty of looking after land settlement and smallholdings?

Mr. WESTWOOD: One of the assistant secretaries of the Department is
responsible, under the permanent secretary. A reference was made to surveys by the hon. Member for Kincardine. The surveys to which I refer deal with the profitableness of farming, book-keeping and problems associated with the financial side of the industry. We are collecting information which can be passed on to the farming community and which may be of great value to the industry as a whole.

Mr. SCOTT: I take it that the Government will consider the wider survey of which I spoke?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The suggestion of the hon. Member will receive consideration. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour) asked a question regarding the increased cost of travelling expenses. This is due partly to the acceleration of land settlement by the present Government and partly to new legislation under which new duties have been imposed upon the staff of the Department. The right hon. and gallant Member also put a question in connection with the experiments on peat land which had been carried out. The conditions on the experimental farm have provided some satisfactory crops. My right hon. Friend and myself when Parliamentary Private Secretary paid visits to that particular farm and saw some of the experiments being carried out, and I feel sure that all of us would wish to express our thanks, as a House, to Mr. T. B. Macaulay for the splendid financial assistance he is giving us and the great experiments that have been made possible in the interests of the reclamation of land and the turning to good use of such soils as are to be found in various parts of the Highlands and Islands. It is, however, too early to say whether the experiment being carried through at this one place can be made applicable to other areas. We are continuing experiments in the hope that success will attend our efforts, and then the enthusiasm of Mr. Macaulay will enable us to secure benefits for the rest of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) asked some questions about piers. I have already referred to that matter briefly. The problem of the particular pier he mentioned is one
of great interest to the hon. Member, who interviewed the Secretary of State and myself about it. The matter is still receiving consideration, and the hon. Member can rest assured that if it is possible for anything to be done to improve the pier it will be done. It is a question of priority. There is a limited sum of money to be spent, and the question of priority has to be settled first in the interests of those who require the expenditure of the money. The question of piers as it affects this and other places is receiving very careful consideration. There is a report of a Departmental Committee which is under consideration at the moment.
Certain questions were put by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen and Kincardine. He asked about the amount of the outstanding rents for smallholdings. In most cases the arrears to which I shall refer are not irrecoverable; in many cases it is merely a question of payment being deferred. I will give the figures as far as I have them. On 31st March, 1931, the amount due was £50,964, and the arrears were £11,800. The building loan annuities falling due were £38,666, and the arrears £7,306. The number of holders in arrears was 1,191. I trust that those figures give the information required. Another question was, what money had been expended for arterial drainage? The hon. Member may rest assured that if we can speed up the provision of work for the unemployed and materially deal with the problem of flooding and the draining of our waterlogged land, so far as our administrative power allows the £12,000 will be spent before the end of the year. It is only an approximate estimate, and there may be a balance left or a deficit which will require a Supplementary Estimate, but so far as our administrative power allows we shall do our best to get a full return for the money and to see that it is spent in the best interests of land drainage in Scotland.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Is it likely to be spent this year, after what the Secretary of State said?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I thought I had answered that question. The hon. Member seems to be the only one in the Committee who objects to expenditure which
will improve the land. Other hon. Members have not complained.

Mr. SMITH: I did not complain. I said that I thought the money could be more usefully spent, as the Under-Secretary will see if he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. My memory is probably as good as his. The other day, when a question was put, he corrected me for not having taken up his reply accurately and referred me to the OFFICIAL REPORT. When I looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT I found that I had been perfectly correct. Let me ask again, Does the Secretary of State consider that it is likely that the £12,000 will be spent? If not, as I said, it could be more usefully spent in field drainage.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is not only likely to be spent, but in the condition in which land is in Scotland at the present time, it is most desirable that it should be spent. That is a definite answer to the hon. Member. I think I have now dealt with the main points raised during the Debate. There is no problem which requires more careful thought than the problem of land settlement. In 1929 the Government, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, decided to accelerate, land settlement in Scotland. With the limited funds at our disposal we have tried to give effect to that acceleration. We have to get more and more people settled on the land. I consider that we ought to develop more and more smallholdings. I believe that, with the present agricultural situation, by the development of smallholdings we shall be able more effectively to deal with the problem of cultivation for our own people of food from our own land, and also deal with the problem of unemployment.

Mr. MILLAR: Would the Under-Secretary state when he expects to get Treasury sanction for the agricultural credits scheme? That question has been put twice.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is impossible for me to add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on that point. It is a question that has been exercising the mind of my right hon. Friend for a very long time. There have been great difficulties in the way,
but the important thing is that we are going to see success where others failed. We have now got four Scottish banks to agree to set up a corporation. These banks are responsible for carrying through the work, and they will carry out the arrangements in their own particular way. The hon. and learned Member may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay in having the money available for assisting agriculture.

Mr. MATHERS: I am sorry that I was not present when the Under-Secretary of State began his speech. I asked what advice he would give to those who are anxious to have land for allotments and the like.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The only advice I can give is to await the possibility of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill getting through the other House. It is the only possibility which lies in front of us of placing more people on the land and I did not refer to it earlier because I knew that, as the question involved prospective legislation, I would be out of order in doing so.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee report Progress; to Bit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Order was read, and postponed.

ROYAL NAVY (INVALIDED RATING).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. LONGDEN: I deeply regret to have to detain the House at this hour but I find that there is no other way of expressing what I consider to be justifiable indignation at the treatment of a boy by the Admiralty during the last few years. This boy is Edward Bennett, and he Jives in my Division. He volunteered to serve 12 years in the Navy. He joined up in October, 1925, and was invalided out in May, 1926. The boy immediately developed paralysis all at one side of the
body affecting the leg, arm and tongue and there is nothing which would lead one to suppose that this infliction has been in any way due to any weakness or to the boy himself. The Admiralty have denied any responsibility for this boy or any obligation towards him and his parents and the boy stresses the maltreatment which he says he suffered while in the naval school at Harwich. The difficulty is that we cannot get the original report made under the last Administration—the Tory Administration—from the medical point of view, and all my efforts for over three years have not resulted in any help at all being given to this very poor boy. The case of the Admiralty has been very clearly stated in letters which have been written to me and from which I propose to quote in order to save time. I received a letter on 17th April, 1929, as follows:
I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that Bennett was invalided out of the Royal Navy on 2nd June, 1926, on account of mental inefficiency, certified by the Medical Board of Survey to be not attributable to the Service.
On 9th August, 1929, that statement was repeated and in a letter on 28th October, 1929, I had this written to me from the Admiralty:
The complete medical evidence available is accordingly that the boy has been treated since 1926 for nervous disability, aphonia (probably hysterical), growth of big toe nail, boils and neurasthenia. The Royal Naval barracks at Shotley reported on him when serving in the Navy that he was under observation both in hospital and on the school attending list, practically the whole time he was there.
Finally I am told:
If it is the case that he arrived home with loss of voice and a cripple, it suggests very strongly that these disabilities are of functional origin as suggested by his medical record since leaving the Navy.
The boy on the other hand argues his case very effectively and he has sent me an unsolicited letter in which he says that he was in hospital mainly through maltreatment. To quote from the boy's letter:
I cannot get a record of my health before going into the Navy as I was always in good health. I have witnesses to prove that I was fit before joining up. I am now paralysed in arm, leg and speech. In the inter-mess boxing I was described by the Commander as 'a little tiger.'
The boy claims, to use his own words, that his condition Is due to "ill-treatment
by the petty officer and his orders." To quote him again, he received
six cuts of the birch for having four fag-ends in his possession and 12 cuts for running away caused by the ill-treatment of the petty officers.
He was smacked across the face, he says, and he did not know what it was about. He received punishment in the "gym" by "indescribable jumping, climbing, bending and straining' and, finally, he says that the reason for entering the hospital was the result of birching and other ill-usage. Probably there was a type of officer there of the kind who would like to see men "on the knee" in the interests of discipline in the old savage fashion that we know so well. An Admiralty letter dated 6th September, 1929, tells me this:
It is open of course to the boy's friends to produce any reliable medical evidence tending to show that his present illness is attributable to his naval service.
The local doctor, who knows the family well, Dr. Moscow, a very competent man indeed, has made a certain inquiry into the family history and precedents, physiologically and mentally, and he found no traceable hereditary weaknesses of a nervous order nor any traceable functional weakneses, either in the family or in the boy. He says himself of the boy:
His left hand is much wasted. The upper and lower arm movements are good, but the left hand is spastic and kept in a position of palmer flexion. I find hysterical aphonia. He can shout loudly, but can talk only in a whisper.
There are in addition many opinions of his neighbours. Here is one from a. Mr. Carter, a very reliable neighbour, who says:
This is to certify that I have known Edward Bennett for about 10 years, and before he joined the Royal Navy, before he entered the Service, he was a fine lad, being bright, strong, intelligent, and of splendid physique; in fact, when he had his first leave from Shotley he was a picture to look at. When he came home discharged from the Royal Navy it was a shock to me, for I met him, and not only had he lost his voice, but he was a cripple, and is now. I am prepared to swear on oath, if required, that the boy was fit in every conceivable way when he joined the Royal Navy, but when he came out he was a complete wreck, so I think that proves that his illness must have been caused through his service.
I have other letters that I might quote, including one from Mr. Vincent, one
from Mr. Gray, one from Mr. Crutchley, O.B.E., and quite a number of others. It seems to me that the letters from the Admiralty partly admit the boy's case. In the letter of 19th April, 1929, from my Lords Commissioners, one reads this:
As he was discharged prior to attaining the age of 18, he is ineligible for the award of any compensation under the Disability Pensions Regulations.
Secondly, in the Civil Lord's letter of 6th September, 1929, it says:
An illness which has developed since his naval service is not necessarily attributable to service.
Those words "not necessarily" bring in a considerable element of doubt, and if there be any doubt in a tragic case like this, the benefit ought to be given on the lad's side and not on the State's side. It is very strange that this boy entered the Navy fit as a fiddle and that actually during the time he was in the Service, some eight or nine months, he rapidly declined in mind and body in this way and became paralysed. No effort of mine for these three years can get a penny for that lad—not even recognition for him. That is not good enough. There must be plenty of parents wondering where their children are going to. The fault may have been under the old administration, and it may have been more difficult than at present, but none the less the public ought to realise what might happen to their children if they get into the hands of people like this brutal petty officer appears to be. I trust that there is still hope that the Financial Secretary will do his best to see that the State plays the game with the boy that apparently it has crippled.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Everybody who heard the case put by my hon. Friend would naturally feel a good deal of sympathy with the person on whose behalf he spoke, and one might say that he is happy in his advocate, for the case could not have been put with greater feeling and sympathy. But, in the first place, it is fair for me to remind the House that this case dates back to 1925, when the lad joined the Service at a little more than 15 years of age. He went to Shotley in October, 1925; and he was invalided out in May, 1926. Nothing was heard of the case until 1927, when it was first raised, and it was again raised, as my hon.
Friend has said, in 1929. There is one mistake that at once obtrudes itself in the statement of my hon. Friend, when he said that the lad complained of having been birched. The birch is not used in the Navy for boys, but only caning, and that under exceptional circumstances, so that that in itself is an exaggeration. It is difficult at this distance of time to trace any accusation of ill-treatment by individual petty officers. This is the only case that has come to our notice. We have certainly never heard of any case of ill-treatment, and if one visits these ships and knows anything of the life in them, one gathers that these lads are treated with a very great deal of consideration, probably very much more than they get in the normal public school.
Naturally, when this case was raised—and my hon. Friend not only wrote but spoke to me about it—I called for the whole of the papers and went through them myself very carefully, and I am bound to say that, with the greatest will in the world to find some loophole, there does not seem to be any at all in this case. It is true that the boy was admitted, and the House will readily see that even if we admit the very worst, it would have to have been tremendously rapid for it to happen within six months of service. If my hon. Friend states that he was in A.1 condition when he joined, that even makes it more unlikely. The whole conditions in the Navy and in naval training are not such as would be conducive to a rapid deterioration of health in such circumstances.
I called for reports with regard to the time during which this boy was in the Service, and the reports almost immediately after he joined were to the effect that he was a wholly unsatisfactory recruit. He was continually attending the hospital for imaginary or minor complaints, almost daily. He showed signs of subnormal development, and in the examinations, which were merely elementary, he scored only 28 per cent. of the marks. Then the report says that while he was in hospital the observation was that his expression was dull and heavy, that he was slow and contradictory in answering questions, and below the average intelligence. I went into the whole matter carefully, and the practice of the Admiralty is—I can say this with every confidence, having handled a
good many cases, and within the knowledge of hon. Members on both sides of the House—that if there is an element of doubt on which we can work, the benefit is always given to the man or the lad himself, and it is wholly because there is no shadow of doubt, so far as the papers show in this case, that one has had to come to the decision that has already been communicated to the House by my hon. Friend.
During the time he was in the Service he was given the opportunity to state his own case, as is usually the practice, and he made no claim that his condition was the sequel to any injury or treatment that he received while in the Navy. The only remark which he made in regard to his health was that his toe hurt when walking, and that he was born with it. The medical reports on the whole are that the lad was of a hysterical nature, and subsequent certificates from outside medical sources that we have had since he has been out of the Navy seem to bear that out. Part of that certificate has already been communicated to the House by my hon. Friend. If it be true that he has shown signs that he was mentally alive after he left, all I can say is that he shammed very effectively during the time he was in the Navy to bring about his discharge.

Mr. LONGDEN: That is hardly fair.

Mr. AMMON: That is the only conclusion one can form.

Dr. MORGAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is arguing medically that a person who is passed fit into the Navy cannot in the course of nine months or six months, because of certain alleged ill-treatment he has received, develop symptoms which are regarded as of a functional nature?

Mr. AMMON: A lot hinges on the word "alleged," and there is no proof whatever. If any proof can be brought forward that he suffered ill-treatment, that may alter the case, but there is no evidence whatever. It would be peculiar if this one lad, out of all who have been trained in the Navy, should have suffered this very exceptional treatment, but there is no evidence whatever in regard to it. It is very difficult to trace it at this distance of time, and it has to be remembered that a very long while elapsed before any complaint was brought
to the attention of the Admiralty. That makes it more difficult to prove, and very much more difficult to find out whether there is any truth in it or not. What I am trying to point out is that there would have to be very exceptional circumstances for the lad to deteriorate at that rate in so short a time. Those exceptional circumstances are not proved. If they were, we would be only too glad to review the case, and give the benefit of the doubt to the lad himself.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Lord and I have given great personal attention to this case, and we have done everything we can to get at the facts. Were there the slightest shadow of doubt, we would have given it to the boy gladly and willingly, but the whole facts of the case seem to prove that there is nothing whatever in the treatment he received while he was in the Navy which brought about this condition. Soon after he joined he showed signs of being physically and mentally below the normal standard, and he was in hospital for the greater part of the time for minor complaints, and it was necessary to invalid him out at the end of that time. If it were possible to meet my hon. Friend I would gladly do it, but I can assure him that it is the practice of the Admiralty, at any rate during the time I have been there, always to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are concerned. I am sorry that it is not possible for us to do that in the present case.

Mr. KELLY: Something seems to be wanting in the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I know nothing of this case except what I have heard in this Debate, but I would ask, in view of the allegations, whether any questions were put to the particular petty officer who had charge of this boy, why a boy who so soon after joining the Navy was found to be (Subnormal should have been accepted for the Navy, why his want of capacity was not found out when he was enlisted, how soon after he joined the Navy was he admitted to hospital, and what was the complaint from which he was suffering? Who was responsible for taking into the Navy a boy whom the Admiralty now claim to have been sub-normal; and why, as he had to go into a hospital within a few days, were no steps taken to release him from the Navy?
I hope the case will not rest where it is at the moment. Investigations of some kind are required. The statement has been made that there is a complaint from only one boy. I hope the Admiralty will never rely upon that situation. I have known cases in other Services where one boy has not received the same treatment—I will put it no higher than that—as other boys who were being trained, and had excellent reason for complaining. I cannot say that that happened in this ease. I do not want to suggest that the petty officer did not like this particular boy, or anything of that kind, but the case cannot be left where it is. Here is a boy whom we are now told is a cripple, but who was a sound boy when he entered the Navy. His neighbours speak of him as being an extremely bright boy physically and mentally. After a few months' service in the Navy he is in a crippled condition. Things cannot be left there, and I hope the Admiralty will investigate the case and get right down to the bottom of it, so that nobody in this country shall believe that a boy entering the Navy is not going to be properly treated.

Dr. MORGAN: I was a little disappointed with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I asked a question of him really to try to ascertain whether he had any medical substantiation for the view which was expressed at the time, and only from the point of view of eliciting the outlook of the Admiralty in reference to the medical document read out. He may have some document in his possession counteracting that. There seem to be two points in this case, first, the medical fitness of the boy, and secondly, his mental stability. This boy was accepted for service in the Navy at a most impressionable age. Presumably he came up to the physical and mental standards required on recruitment. Whatever happened, whether physical ill-treatment or his mental reaction to his surroundings—suppose all the suggestions of physical ill-treatment were untrue—yet here is a boy who has been mentally affected by the conditions existing in the Navy. As a result of that service, the boy developed a mental state which resulted in him having to go to the hospital for complaints which he regards as being real, and which the hospital authorities regard as imaginary.
May I point put that they must have been real symptoms, because, in the end, the boy was taken to the hospital to have those symptoms treated. The boy has been dismissed from the Navy under conditions which deny him any opportunity of working in the ordinary industrial market. In the first instance, the Admiralty were of the opinion that the boy-was fit for recruitment, and now he is sent from the Navy with a ruined constitution, and he is refused compensation for a state which is due to the conditions under which he has been serving.
It has been stated that the boy developed a dull mentality in the Service, but when did he develop it? There is a certain disease known as sleepy sickness. In its acute form it is easy to diagnose, but in its minor form—every disease has extremes from the most trivial to the extreme—it is one of the most difficult diseases to diagnose, and yet it leaves mental after-effects. The boy may have had that form of sleepy sickness after his service, and this may have caused his mental reaction. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the case, because his reply has not been at all convincing. I am only considering the statement and the counter-statement, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary has strong medical facts showing that the boy is not entitled to compensation, he should tell us what they are, and he has not so far told us. It may be that the condition of the boy is attributable to his service in the Navy, and for these reasons I hope the hon. Gentleman will give the boy's case further consideration.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that the Minister is going to agree to consider this case further. I would suggest that he should get from the boy's schoolmaster some record of his conduct and condition when at school. This boy is passed into the Service, and afterwards begins to show evidence of a dull mental condition and a bad physical condition. It was not there when he passed in, or, at least, the Minister has to take responsibility for the fact that he was passed into the Service. I suggest that the Minister might quite well go back to the boy's earlier period of life at school, and find whether he was a healthy boy and what was his schoolmaster's opinion of him. If that is satisfactory, you come to the second stage. The boy is passed into the Service, and
he is not very long in the Service before this hysterical condition, this mental and physical condition and his desire to go into hospital, becomes apparent. The history of the boy after he left the Navy, and his present condition, show that the boy's desire to go into the hospital was due to a defective physical and mental condition.
When I heard the Minister's statement to-night, I wondered that his medical advisers did not seem to see this connection between the boy's condition while he was in the Service and his anxiety to get into hospital, and his present condition. To an ordinary lay mind like my own, there would appear to be an obvious connection there, and I believe that every Member of this House would feel greater confidence if the Minister would tell us that, after hearing his fellow Members on this case, he is prepared to have regard to the former history of the boy during his school life. If that school life shows a satisfactory physical and mental condition, it is obvious that it was during the period when he was in the Service that the symptoms began to develop which have resulted ultimately in his crippled condition.
It may be said that it was latent formerly, and only began to become definite during his period in the Service, but my reason for intervening is that I do not think that, in the handling of these cases by the Ministry of Pensions, the medical authorities ever give sufficient attention to their own responsibility, or the responsibility of their fellow medical officers who passed those people into the Service. I believe that one of the weaknesses of our whole administration in dealing with such cases is that it is said, "Well, possibly he should never have been passed in; a mistake has been made"; and, because a mistake has been made, no responsibility is accepted for it. I ask the Minister if he will not give the House the assurance that, in view of the statements of his fellow Members and the obvious feeling in the House that more consideration should be given to the case along these lines, he will take into consideration all these additional points that have appealed to the rest of us, with a view to something being done for this boy.

Mr. KEDWARD: Allegations of the gravest nature have been made on the Floor of the House, and I do not think
it possible that we can leave this matter where it is. Statements have been made which will go out to the public, and what kind of effect will they have on the parents of boys who are thinking of joining the Royal Navy? For the honour of the Admiralty and of the Service, and for the satisfaction of this boy, there ought to be the most careful and searching inquiry into the whole of these facts. Any reluctance to grant such an inquiry will be taken by the British public to mean that there is more in this than appears on the surface, and I think it would be a good thing if the Parliamentary Secretary would give the House an assurance that the Admiralty will make a most searching investigation and call before the tribunal those who are able to give evidence, and thus clear up this matter to the satisfaction of the Service and of the boy himself.

Mr. AMMON: By the leave of the House, I would say, in answer to the last two speakers, that, if anyone can bring any fresh evidence upon which we can act, we shall be only too glad to reopen the case and go into it to the fullest possible extent. I shall be only too glad if any ground can be advanced for going into it. This lad was recruited in the ordinary way at an ordinary recruiting station. He was accepted but was found later not to be quite up to standard. From the very beginning he was seen to be not up to standard. He was in the naval school. He was reported upon by the officer in charge as below standard and was sent for medical observation. The medical officers had no purpose in acting against him. Two or three medical officers gave independent reports, and on that he was passed out, not on any physical ground, but as mentally unfit for service. Nearly 12 months elapsed before any complaint came to the Admiralty. This was years before the present Government came in. A lot may have happened during that time that we know nothing about. He was simply passed out as one who would not make an efficient naval rating.

Mr. STEPHEN: But he was passed in first, and we hold that you have to take responsibility for the passing in. If he should not have been passed in, that is unfortunate, but some of us feel that
the Ministry must accept responsibility for that action. We have to assume that, when he was passed in, he was in first-class condition.

Mr. AMMON: That sort of thing is happening again and again in all the Services. A recruit may be accepted by the recruiting officer and be found on subsequent examination not to be quite up to standard. With lads of this age, there is every possibility that, with proper training and nourishment, they may be improved. Everything shows that this boy was given every consideration. It is hardly fair that the Navy should be charged with ill-treatment or any responsibility in a case like this. I repeat publicly what I have said in writing to my hon. Friend, that, if there is any evidence, however slight, that can be brought forward which will give us any room to review the case, I shall be only too glad to see that it is reviewed fully.

Mr. KEDWARD: Has any investigation taken place in regard to the charges of cruelty? That is the point that is in my mind. Has the boy been given an opportunity of being brought face to face with those against whom he makes the accusation? It seems to me that that needs to be done.

Mr. AMMON: The first thing I insisted upon was that inquiry should be made as to the alleged cases of ill-treatment. A searching investigation was made, but the same petty officers are not there now. That is one of the difficulties. Everything was done to trace any record or to find anyone who knew anything about ill-treatment. There is no ground whatever for the assertion. The very fact that the suggestion was made that he was birched is an indication of the inconsistency of the position. There was no birching at all. The birch is only used in cases of unnatural sexual offences. Only a cane such as that in use in ordinary schools is used and there are records of ordinary caning in the punishment book. There has been no evidence on which one can proceed to bear out any charges of any ill-treatment in regard to the contemporaries of the boy; in regard to none of these can we find any cases of ill-treatment by petty officers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.